1. Editorial Staff is responsible for every content published in KMM UJ.
    
2. Editors are obliged to care for the constant improvement of their journal. Among their duties are:
   
   a) Meeting the requirements of readers and authors.
   b) Ensuring the appropriate level of published materials.
   c) Developing the freedom of speech.
   d) Maintaining the integrity of the academic record.
   e) Preventing business needs from affecting the intellectual standards negatively.
   f) Constant willingness to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions or apologies whenever necessary.
    
3. Readers should be informed about the institutions funding the research, as well as their role in conducting the research.
    
4. Editors’ decisions connected with acceptation or refusal of a paper to publication may be based only on its importance, originality and clarity, and also the study’s relevance to the subject realised by the journal. Editors should not change their decisions on accepting submissions except there are serious problems identified.
    
5. Editorial Staff ought to publish a description of peer review processes, and every violation of the described processes should be justified by the Editors. Also, Editors should provide a guidance for the authors containing every expectations for them; the guidance must be regularly updated and consistent with the COPE Code.
    
6. Journal should create a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against decisions of its Editors.
    
7. Editors should provide a guidance for  reviewers containing every expectations for them. It must be regularly updated and consistent with the COPE Code.
    
8. Editorial Staff should create systems that protect the reviewers’ identities—unless an open review system is dedicated both to the authors and the reviewers. Editors also ought to create systems ensuring confidentiality of submitted material during peer review processes. 
    
9. In case of a complaint Editors should follow the procedure recommended in the COPE flowcharts.
    
10. Editorial Staff should respond to complaints immediately, providing further appeal for the dissatisfied. This mechanism must be described by the Journal, as well as contain instructions of referring unresolved problems to COPE.
     
11. Criticism of published work should be published if there are no reasons disallowing this possibility. Author should have provided opportunity to respond to the criticism. Studies reporting negative results cannot be excluded by the Editors.
     
12. Editorial Staff is responsible for compatibility of the materials they publish with international ethical guidelines. Editors should seek assurances that all the research has been approved by the proper institution (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board).
     
13. Editors are responsible for the confidentiality of personal information of people, who participated in the research.
     
14. In case of suspecting the misconduct, Editors have a duty to take action; it applies to both published and unpublished papers—Editors cannot reject the suspected material without undertaking an investigation.
     
15. Firstly, Editors should request explanations from the accused. If they are dissatisfied with his response, Editorial Staff ought to ask the relevant supervisors or a regulatory body to investigate.
     
16. Editors should ensure conducting an appropriate investigation or obtain a resolution of the problem themselves.
     
17. If published material is recognised as inaccurate, misleading or distorted, it must be corrected, and the amendment is to be promptly exposed. When after investigating the case the accusation has proven to be false, it must be cancelled. The retraction needs to be clearly identifiable.
     
18. The relationship between the Journal and its owners ought to be based on the principle of independence.
     
19. Editorial Staff should have declared policies on advertising the Journal’s content and the process for publishing supplements. Advertisements that may be misleading should be rejected, and Editors ought to be willing to publish the criticism according to the same rules used for the rest of materials.
     
20. Reprints are to be published without any changes unless there are corrections to add.
     
21. Editors should create systems of managing the conflicts between themselves as well as their staff, the authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
     
22. A complaint may be referred to COPE by the author, reader, reviewer, Editor or publisher. Complaints are considered only if the Editor/Journal is a member of COPE.

Complaint Procedure

1. In the first instance, a complaint against the Editor should be send to him/her in writing. If it is not solved in a satisfying way, it should be referred to the Editor’s overseeing body or ombudsman. Only the complaints, which have passed through the Journal’s procedures, can be referred to COPE. In referring to COPE, all the documentation connected with the case must be enclosed.
    
2. COPE accepts referral made within 6 months  since the end of the Journal’s procedures. Appeals submitted outside this period of time may be considered only under special circumstances.
    
3. COPE does not consider complaints about the matter of Editorial decisions (not the process), as well as complaints about the incidents that happened before the publication of the COPE Code.
    
4. When the complaint is referred to COPE, the referrer submits it to the Administrator. His duty is to confirm that the complaint concerns a member of COPE, relates to the rules included in the Code, the Journal’s procedures didn’t provide a satisfying resolution to the problem and that the incident took place after the Code came into force (1st January 2005).
    
5. Referrer is obliged to provide all the evidence connected with the case, including the correspondence with the Journal, in confidence to the Chair of COPE.
    
6. The Chair of COPE informs the Editor that the complaint has been referred to COPE. The Editor may refuse any further cooperation—in which case the referrer and the owner of the Journal are informed about the refusal—or state the application of the Journal’s procedures in his/her case.
    
7. If the Editor decides to cooperate, the Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides if the Journal has fulfilled its procedures correctly or if there is a need for further investigation, what is being reported to the relevant sub-committee of COPE Council. In both cases the referrer and the Editor are being informed about the decision.
    
8. The sub-committee considering the complaint consists of the Chair and at least three other members of the COPE Council. Two of them cannot be Editors, and none of the sub-committee members can belong to the same publishing group as the accused. If the Chair belongs to the same publishing group as accused, he/she will appoint an appropriate deputy to oversee the proceedings.
    
9. The sub-committee may reject the case and inform the referrer and the Editor about that fact, or recognise a violation of a Code; in this case the sub-committee presents to COPE Council a report, which contains the explanation of the problem and recommendation of further actions.
    
10. The COPE Council considers the report and may propose modification to the recommendations. Then, it presents the final version of the recommendation to the referrer, Editor and Journal’s owner. The recommendations may include the Editor’s apology to the referrer, publishing the apology in the Journal, improvement of the Journal’s procedures, temporary resignation by the Editor of his COPE membership or any other action that COPE Council finds relevant in given circumstances.
     
11. Appeal against COPE recommendation may be referred to COPE’s ombudsperson; contact details for whom may be provided on request.