Polilog Studia Neofilologiczne

Ethical Standards of the Journal

General information

Editors of the scientific journal “Polylogue. Neophilological Studies”, in order to keep a high level of published articles, maintain ethical standards recommended by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The code of ethics developed by the Editors applies to the Editorial Committee as well as to the Authors and Reviewers.

Ethical Principles Applicable to the Editors of the Scientific Journal “Polylogue. Neophilological Studies”

The decision to publish the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the received reviews and after consultation with both, the Editorial Committee and with Language Editors. Moreover, the Editors are required to meet the following requirements:

1. Confidentiality

The Editorial Committee does not disclose data of submitted articles to unauthorized persons. In addition, the Editors do not disclose the identity of the Authors to the Reviewers and the identity of the Reviewers to the Authors. Manuscripts submitted to the Editors may not be used in their own research without the written consent of the Authors.

2. Objectivity

The publication or rejection of a given text is determined solely by the content of the submitted manuscript and its consistency with the journal’s profile. Therefore, aspects such as Author’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion or political beliefs are not taken into account.

3. Conflict of Interest

The Editorial Committee may not appoint as Reviewers persons who are in a conflict of interest with the Authors, arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships either with the Authors, or with the institution associated with the submitted manuscript.

4. Reliability

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Committee take care of maintaining scientific reliability and high substantive level of published articles. In the case of an alleged violation of ethical standards by the Author, the Editors are obliged to check the validity of such allegations.

In cases of proven scientific misconduct (e.g. plagiarism, duplicate or multiple publication, guest authorship, ghostwriting), the Editor-in-Chief shall be obliged to:

1) reject the text

2) inform the Author about the Editorial Committee’s actions

3) inform the Reviewer

4) contact the institution employing the Author.

Ethical Principles Applicable to the Authors of Scientific Publications

1. The Principle of Originality of Work

The Authors may submit for publication only their own original texts. Authorship of the article should be limited to people who have made a significant contribution to the article and have been listed as co-authors. The Author cannot indicate the participation of people whose contribution to the article was negligible or did not take place (guest authorship). Before submitting the article for publication, the Authors are required to indicate the contribution of individual researchers to the creation of the text by submitting an appropriate Statement, available on the journal’s website.

2. Authors should disclose all sources of project financing

in their work, (the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities), especially if the text is the result of cooperation under a research project.

3. The Principle of Scientific Reliability

Authors of articles based on their own research should accurately present the data which served as the basis for their thesis. False or knowingly inaccurate statements are treated as unethical behavior and are not allowed.

The Author should not publish intellectual materials describing the same research in more than one journal (duplicate or multiple publication). Submitting the same work to more than one editorial office is unethical and is not allowed. The submission of a scientific article, which is a translation of a published text, is also considered unethical.

4. The Principle of Reliability of Sources

The Authors are required to indicate all publications which they used to create the article. Works cited should be directly related to the analyzed issue. The use of research and / or words of others in the article should be indicated in the footnote.

Along with the article, Authors send a declaration bearing the handwritten signature, that they have read the Rules applicable to the Authors, that the text has not been submitted to another journal and has not been published elsewhere; and that information on research funding by persons, institutions and domestic and foreign organizations has not been omitted in the delivered text. The legal consequences of dishonesty and scientific misconduct (plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship, data falsification, multiple publications, unauthorized citations) are borne by the Author submitting the text for publication.

Ethical Principles Applicable to the Reviewers of Scientific Publications

The reviewing process is an important aspect of the publishing process. Reviews help the Editor-in-Chief to make publishing decisions, and help Authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts. The “Polylogue. Neophilological Studies” journal uses the so-called blind peer review process, in which the Authors do not know who is reviewing their manuscript, and the Reviewers do not know the Authors’ identity.

Before accepting a manuscript for review, Reviewers should be convinced that:

1) the manuscript is in the area of their research interests and that they are prepared to make a review;

2) they have sufficient time to write a review within the established deadline.

Moreover, Reviewers are required to meet the following requirements:

1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are material obtained in trust, solely for the purposes of making a critical review. Therefore, they cannot be shared or discussed with other people without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief. It is unacceptable to use information obtained in the review process either for the private benefit of the Reviewer, or to discredit other people.

2. Objectivity

The reviews should be made objectively. Reviewers may not be guided by:

  1. the origin of the manuscript;
  2. the Author’s religious, political or cultural opinions;
  3. the Author’s citizenship, race, ethnicity or gender. It is unacceptable to use comments which may sound hostile, or in any way derogate Authors, or accuse them.

3. Reliability

Reviewers’ comments should be provided in a transparent and constructive manner. Reviewers’ comments should be supported by facts regarding the content of the manuscript. It is recommended to pay attention to:

  1. originality;
  2. contribution to a given area of ​​knowledge;
  3. technical quality of the manuscript;
  4. clarity of the message;
  5. depth of the study.

4. Identification of the Sources Used in the Manuscript

Reviewers should identify materials which were not cited by the Author of the article. Any suspected convergence of the reviewed manuscript with another publication should be immediately reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Disclosure of Data and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers may not review manuscripts which create a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation, or other relationships with the Authors, or with the institution associated with the submitted manuscript.

Based on:

  1. Document Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce Warsaw 2011, issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
  2. Documents: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors;
    COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, by the Committee on Publication Ethics,
  3. Ethical principles in force in other scientific journals.