Neofilolog’s Publishing Ethics Policy
The Polish Association of Modern Languages (PTN) and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, as co-publishers, make every effort to ensure the highest possible quality of publications and to counteract dishonest publication practices, such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing or guest authorship. Publishers apply publishing ethics principles in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The content of the journal is indexed as part of the CrossRef Similarity Check initiative, using the iThenticate software that belongs to the Turnitin company – a global provider of technological services for education and science. This allows for effective identification of professional and scientific plagiarism. A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned to each article. The publication process and publishing journals electronically are accomplished through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) system offering tools that support communication between the author, the editor, and reviewers and improves discussion, proofreading, correction or withdrawal of articles after publication. In case of a breach of ethical guidelines in a text already published, the editors reserve the right to withdraw the article from the website and post information explaining the reasons behind the decision.
EDITORS’ DUTIES
Decisions concerning publication
The decision concerning the publication or rejection of a manuscript is taken by the Editor-in-Chief. The basis for the choice are originality, significance and transparency of the article and its accordance with the subject profile of the journal. In the process of decision-making the Editor-in-chief may ask for the opinion of the editorial team members and reviewers in order to ensure a solid and all-round assessment of the submitted material.
Equal treatment
The Editor-in-Chief assesses articles exclusively based on their merits and significance for the profile of the journal, independent of the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, faith, citizenship or political views of the author(s).
Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team members are obliged to keep full confidentiality of the materials sent to the journal at every stage of the review process. Information concerning the manuscript may only be given to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors or the publisher, only to the extent necessary for the realization of the publishing process.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials contained in the manuscripts sent cannot be used by the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial team members in their own research without clear written permission of the author(s). Ethical conduct in this area also refers to avoiding any actions that might lead to a conflict of interest.
REVIEWERS’ DUTIES
Contribution to editorial decisions
The review process plays a pivotal role in supporting the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial team in taking decisions about publication. The review does not only provide an assessment of merit and methodological work, but it also helps the author improve the manuscript by showing its strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement.
Deadlines
A reviewer that does not feel competent enough to assess the content of a manuscript or is aware that they will not be able to complete the review by the assigned deadline is obliged to immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief. In situations like that the reviewer should withdraw from the review process in order to enable the editorial team to find another, suitable expert.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts sent for review should be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shared or discussed with others without the permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Confidentiality refers both to the content of the manuscript as well as the results of the review process.
Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted abiding by the highest standards of reliability and objectivity. Any signs of personal criticism of the author are unacceptable. Reviewers are obliged to clearly formulate their opinions, supporting them with arguments and evidence.
Confirmation of sources
Reviewers have the duty of indicating important publications that have not been taken into account in the manuscript and that can significantly enrich the topic discussed. They should also inform the Editor-in-Chief about any noticed case of important similarity or overlaps of reviewed content with other publications.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest
Confidential information, ideas or data gained during the review process must remain secret and cannot be used for personal or professional purposes by the reviewer. Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts when there is a potential conflict of interest resulting from personal, professional, financial or other links with authors, institutions or organizations involved in the creation of the reviewed work.
AUTHORS’ DUTIES
Standards of presenting research reports
Authors are obliged to present a detailed and solid description of research conducted, as well as an objective analysis of their meaning. Source data should be presented precisely, ensuring that a repetition of the study is possible. Any inconsistencies, false information or conscious deception are deemed unethical and unacceptable.
Access to data and storing data
Authors can be asked to make available to the editorial team raw data for review and to ensure public access to it throughout a certain period of time after the publication of the article. Although the editorial team does not require an obligatory presentation of the plan of research data management, in exceptional circumstances there could be an obligation to make them accessible both before and after the publication.
Originality of work and preventing plagiarism
The research work needs to be fully original. Authors are obliged to indicate publications that have influenced the work and to correctly cite all sources, abiding by the principles of research ethics. Any practices such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification or making up data or research methods are unacceptable. Information gained privately (for example during conversations or correspondence) can be used only with a written consent of their author.
Avoiding multiple, redundant or parallel publication
Authors cannot publish the same research study in more than one journal or in a different primary publication (for example as a chapter in a monograph). Submitting the same article to different journals at the same time is treated as unethical.
Mistakes in published works
In case of detecting significant mistakes in a published work, the authors are obliged to immediately inform the editorial team and co-operate while correcting them or withdrawing the article
Disclosure of conflicts of interest
Authors are obliged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that can affect the research findings or interpretation. Sources of financing of the research also need to be shown. Conflicts of interest relate to any professional, financial or social relations that can affect the objectivity of the work.
Authorship
Authorship should only be assigned to individuals who have contributed significantly to the research study and preparation of the publication. Authors have the duty to ensure that all co-authors have familiarized themselves with the final version of the manuscript, accepted it and given consent for publication. To prevent such things as ‘ghostwriting’ (when a person contributes to a publication but is not named as an author) or ‘guest authorship’ (when a person not involved in the work is named as an author), authors are obliged to:
- clearly specify the contribution of each author to the publication, taking into account their affiliation and specific actions (for example conceptualisation, methodology). It is the responsibility mainly of the person submitting the work to disclose this information.
- provide all sources of funding the project and of financial obligations between the authors and organizations connected to the publication.
Any cases of scientific unreliability, such as not disclosing the contribution of authors or hiding competing interests shall be documented and reported to suitable institutions, including scientific organizations and institutions hiring authors.
Ethical oversight
In the case of research conducted on people or animals, authors are obliged to present consent of suitable ethical committees or other required permissions to conduct research.
Complaints and appeals
Complaints concerning members of the editorial team should be made in writing. If the complaint concerns the conduct of the editorial team or matters related to the journal, it should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. If the complaint concerns the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief, it should be addressed to the Editor (Polish Association of Modern Languages (PTN)) and submitted for the information of the Editor-in-Chief at the same time. The subject of the complaint can be, among other things, breached interests of the person complaining, neglect of duties, lengthy process or no actions of the editorial team. The individual complaining should receive a written notice about the resolution of the case within 30 days from the date of filing their complaint.
Principles concerning the use of generative Artificial Intelligence in the Neofilolog journal
The principles have been created in response to the growing popularity of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and technologies enhanced by AI that are more and more often used by creators of content. Their main aim is to ensure greater transparency and provide clear guidelines for authors, reviewers, editors, readers and co-workers of the Neofilolog journal. The editorial board are obliged to regularly monitor the development of these technologies and, if needed, adjust or improve current principles to ensure their being up-to-date and relevant.
AUTHORS’ DUTIES
The use of generative AI and technologies enhanced by AI in scientific writing
If authors use generative AI or technologies enhanced by AI during the writing process, these tools should be used only to improve the quality of the linguistic side of the work. The use of technology must happen with human supervision, and authors should be precise in reviewing and editing the content generated, because AI might create materials that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. The ultimate responsibility for the content of work lies with the authors. Authors are obliged to disclose AI and AI-enhanced technologies used in the manuscript, and appropriate information should be included in the published version of the article. AI and AI-enhanced technologies cannot be named as authors, co-authors or cited as authorship sources.
The use of generative AI and tools enhanced by AI in graphics, images and visual materials
We do not allow the use of generative AI or tools enhanced by AI to create or modify images in submitted manuscripts. It concerns any actions such as enhancing, hiding, moving, deleting or adding specific features to images. Only corrections concerning the contrast, brightness or balance of colour are accepted, under the condition that they do not lead to distortion or elimination of information contained in the original material. The use of AI in the process of designing research or in research methods is an exception. In such cases one should describe in detail the way of using AI in the methodological section, including the name of the tool, its version or the producer.
REVIEWERS’ DUTIES
Reviewers do not have the right to use the tools of AI in the process of assessing submitted manuscripts. They should not send submitted manuscripts or their parts to AI tools because such action may breach the confidentiality principle and proprietary rights. This ban also concerns reports of the reviews. The scientific review process requires critical thinking, deep understanding of the field and independent assessment, which goes beyond the current possibilities of the AI technology. The final responsibility for the assessment of the manuscript lies exclusively upon the reviewer.
In suspicion of unmarked use of generators of Artificial Intelligence in a reviewed manuscript, the reviewers are obliged to:
- immediately inform the editorial team about their doubts,
- abstain from an independent review of the text using tools based on Artificial Intelligence
The editorial board assumes responsibility for further explanatory actions, in line with the accepted verification procedures and the policy of the journal.
EDITORS’ DUTIES
Editors may not use AI tools to process submitted manuscripts or to conduct communication related to the review process. The editorial decisions and assessment of manuscripts must be based solely upon independent and critical assessment conducted by humans, ensuring reliability and compliance with the principles of publication ethics.
In cases of a suspicion of unmarked use of AI generators in a submitted manuscript, the editors undertake appropriate actions to explain the issue. They may include:
- analysis of the manuscript submitted using the tools supported by AI models,
- consultations with experts in a given field,
- direct contact with the author(s) in order to gain an explanation and additional information concerning the process of preparing the work.
The purpose of these actions is to ensure compliance of the submitted publication with the principles of scientific ethics and the policy of the journal on the use of AI.