Ethics | Neofilolog

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). To ensure the originality of scholarly publications, the Editorial Office uses the Crossref Similarity Check service, powered by iThenticate. This enables the effective detection of plagiarism and unauthorized appropriation of others’ work. In accordance with good publishing practices, each article is assigned a permanent digital identifier (Digital Object Identifier: DOI). Where possible, authors are encouraged to provide their own open ORCID identifier (Open Researcher and Contributor ID), while institutions are assigned a persistent, unique ROR ID (Research Organization Registry) if they are included in the registry. The publication process is managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS), which supports peer-review management, editorial communication, publication archiving, and transparency of the publishing process. The journal follows a double-blind peer-review procedure.

Anti-plagiarism Policy
To ensure the originality and high quality of published articles, the journal applies the latest procedures for evaluating them, and uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system using iThenticate software. The system makes it possible to identify similarities in a text by comparing it with publications available on the Internet and indexed databases, and identifying the sources of passages. Works in which borrowings from other authors are found inappropriately cited or plagiarized will be rejected by the editors, and all cases of scientific dishonesty (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, suppression of the input of others in the research described in an article, or its editing) will be revealed and the relevant entities (institutions where authors work, scientific associations, associations of scientific editors, etc.) will be informed. If plagiarism is found in a published paper, the Editorial Board will withdraw the text and post a notice to this effect on the journal's website and/or in the printed version.

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 consult members of the Editorial Team and reviewers in order to ensure a thorough and comprehensive 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
Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Team 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 conflicts of interest, understood as situations in which the personal, professional, financial, or other affiliations of an editor, editorial team member, or reviewer may affect their impartiality and objectivity in evaluating a manuscript. In the event of a conflict of interest, the person involved in the editorial or peer-review process should disclose it to the Editorial Office and recuse themselves from making decisions concerning the manuscript in question.

REVIEWERS’ DUTIES

Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer-review process plays a pivotal role in supporting the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Team in making decisions concerning 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 reviewer.

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 of any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and 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 may be asked to make raw data available to the Editorial Office for review and to ensure public access to it throughout a certain period of time after the publication of the article. Although the Editorial Office 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 Office and co-operate while correcting them or withdrawing the article. The Editorial Office also applies other forms of response to issues identified after publication, including editorial/publisher corrections (errata), author corrections (corrigenda), expressions of concern, and article retractions, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

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
An appeal should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of receiving the editorial decision. The appeal should include the title of the manuscript, the grounds for the appeal, and an indication of the elements of the editorial decision or review that the author considers unreliable, unjustified, or requiring reconsideration.

The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment of the merits of the appeal. Where justified, the manuscript may be referred for further evaluation to another member of the Editorial Team or to an additional independent reviewer. Individuals involved in the reassessment must have no conflict of interest with the author(s) or with the reviewers involved in the original evaluation process.

The decision made following consideration of the appeal is final. The author receives written notification of the outcome of the appeal, together with the reasons for the decision.

The appeals procedure is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and impartiality and in line with COPE guidelines.

A complaint concerning the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief should be addressed to the publisher (Polskie Towarzystwo Neofilologiczne) and simultaneously copied to the Editor-in-Chief. The grounds for a complaint may include, among others, infringement of the complainant’s interests, neglect of duties, undue delay in proceedings, or failure of the Editorial Office to take action. The complainant should receive written notification of the outcome of the complaint within no more than 30 days from the date of submission.

Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the journal Neofilolog

These guidelines have been developed in response to the growing popularity of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies, which are increasingly being used by content creators. Their primary aim is to ensure greater transparency and to provide clear guidance to authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other contributors to Neofilolog. The Editorial Office is committed to regularly monitoring developments in these technologies and, where necessary, adapting or refining the applicable guidelines to ensure that they remain up to date and appropriate.

All information concerning the use of AI must be disclosed at the time of manuscript submission. Except for the permitted use of tools for language improvement, which does not differ from the use of conventional language-editing tools, all passages generated or developed using AI must be clearly identified in the submitted manuscript [and described in the cover letter], so that the Editorial Team can assess the extent of AI use. The Editorial Team reserves the right to decide whether to accept or reject a manuscript based on the information provided regarding the extent and manner of AI use.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scholarly writing

If authors use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, such tools should be used especially to improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript. Their use must remain under human supervision, and authors should carefully review and edit any generated content, as AI may produce material that is inaccurate, incomplete, or biased. The authors retain full responsibility for the content of their work.

Authors are required to disclose in the manuscript any use of AI or AI-assisted technologies, and the relevant information should also be included in the published version of the article.

AI and AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors or co-authors of a work, nor may they be cited as authorial sources.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in graphics, images, and visual materials
The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or modify images in submitted manuscripts is not permitted. This includes any actions such as enhancing, concealing, moving, removing, or introducing specific features into images. The only acceptable adjustments are those relating to contrast, brightness, or colour balance, provided that they do not distort or eliminate information contained in the original material.

An exception applies to the use of AI in the research design process or as part of research methods. In such cases, the use of AI must be described in detail in the methodology section, including the name of the tool, its version, and its developer or provider.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers are not permitted to use artificial intelligence tools in the process of evaluating submitted manuscripts. They should not upload submitted manuscripts or any parts thereof to AI tools, as this may breach confidentiality and copyright. This prohibition also applies to peer-review reports. The reviewer retains sole responsibility for the evaluation of the manuscript.

If reviewers suspect undisclosed use of generative AI in a manuscript under review, they are required to:

promptly notify the Editorial Office of their concerns;
refrain from independently checking the text using AI-based tools.

The Editorial Office will assume responsibility for any further investigation, in accordance with the journal’s established verification procedures and policies.

EDITORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Editors must not use AI tools to process submitted manuscripts or to conduct communication related to the peer-review process. Editorial decisions and manuscript evaluations must be based exclusively on independent and critical human assessment, thereby ensuring the integrity of the process and compliance with publication ethics.

If editors suspect undisclosed use of generative AI in a submitted manuscript, they will take appropriate steps to clarify the matter. These may include:

analysing the submitted manuscript using tools supported by AI models;
consulting experts in the relevant field;
contacting the author(s) directly to obtain explanations and additional information concerning the preparation of the manuscript.

The purpose of these actions is to ensure that submitted publications comply with the principles of research and publication ethics and with the journal’s policy on the use of AI.