Ethical standards


Multiple Criteria Decision Making is published by The Publisher of University of Economics in Katowice (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach) and aims to disseminate novel methods in area of multiple criteria decision making. Publication is a direct reflection of the quality of work carried by the authors. In this case, the concept of peer-reviewed articles plays a key role in the scientific process. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour.

The Editorial Team of MCDM journal complies with the ethical standards recommended by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, as well as the recommendations provided by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Authors should conduct their research from research proposal to publication in line with best practices and codes of conduct of COPE.

1. Ethical expectations

Authors' responsibilities
  • Authorship is limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution and interpretation of the reported study.
  • Authors should confirm that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors must confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original.
  • All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  • Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Authors should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher whenever a significant error in their publication is identified.
Editors' responsibilities
  • Editors must act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity, geographical location of authors, or any other demographic factor.
  • Editors assign two reviewers from different countries, neither of whom are from the same institution as any of the authors, and ensure that reviewing is carried out using a "double-blind" process. This process is aimed at avoiding any conflict of interests between authors and reviewers.
  • Editors should adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical nature or regarding conflicts of interest, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the journal. They must give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated, no matter when the original publication was approved. The documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
  • Editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when appropriate.
Reviewers' responsibilities
  • Reviewing is carried out using a "double-blind" process. The reviewers should not comment on a paper under review to anyone except through the journal's review process or via the editor in charge.
  • Reviewers should contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of published papers by reviewing manuscripts objectively and within the reasonably set deadlines.
  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. They should not disseminate the manuscript in any way before publication.
  • Reviewers should alert the editor to any published or submitted content which is substantially similar to that under review.
  • Reviewers should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships involving the reviewer and the research subject) and to alert the editor to these, and when necessary decline to review a manuscript for such reasons.
Publisher's responsibilities

The Publisher of University of Economics in Katowice (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach) shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.

2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Anyone may inform the editors at any time of suspected unethical behaviour of any type of misconduct by giving the necessary information/evidence to start an investigation.

  • Editor-in-Chief will consult with the editor(s) in charge on decisions regarding the initiation of an investigation.
  • During an investigation, any evidence should be treated as strictly confidential and only made available to those strictly involved in investigating.
  • The accused will always be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them.
  • If it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either minor or serious.
Minor breaches

Minor misconduct will be dealt with directly with those involved without involving any other parties, for example:

  • Communicating to authors/reviewers whenever a minor issue involving misunderstanding or misapplication of academic standards has occurred.
  • A warning letter to an author or reviewer regarding fairly minor misconduct.
Serious breaches

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the board of editors, should make any decision regarding the course of action to be taken using the evidence available and, when appropriate, further consultation with a small group of experts. The possible outcomes are as follows (these can be used separately or jointly):

  • Publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct.
  • Informing the author's (or reviewer's) head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter.
  • The formal, announced withdrawal of publications from the journal, including its removal from any abstracting & indexing services.
  • A ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Referring a case to a professional organisation or legal authority for further investigation and action.