Academic Journal of Modern Philology implements ethical standards observed by the academic community worldwide, in particular by:

a) double-blind peer reviews: all submitted to AJMP manuscripts undergo a double-blind review, which means that the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. Therefore, the names of the reviewers are not disclosed, and the author gets acquainted with the content of the review only. The manuscript is anonymised before sending it to review.

The fundamental strength of the peer review process remains the foundation of our editorial philosophy and the procedure itself seeks to answer several questions:
1. How does the article contribute to a field or discipline?
2. Which elements are particularly valuable to readers?
3. How does the author’s methodology fit into the study?
4. What is the quality of presented bibliographical entries?
5. Does the article qualify for publishing without any further corrections?
6. Does the article qualify for publishing with minor corrections? If so, what corrections are necessary?
7. Does the article qualify for publishing with major corrections? If so, what corrections are necessary?
8. Does the article not qualify for publishing? Please justify your opinion.

b) the procedure: for the detailed procedure, see: Reviewing Manuscripts.

c) rules for reviewers: specific duties for reviewers are described at: https://ajmp.uwr.edu.pl/publication-ethics.
Only original papers of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of our journal will undergo the reviewing process.
Each submission is assessed by outside reviewers affiliated to an institution different from that of the author.
Editors match reviewers with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible.
The complete list of reviewers for a given issue is published in printed issues of AJMP and online at: https://ajmp.uwr.edu.pl/board-of-reviewers.

d)  prevention of scientific misconducts:
– conflicts of interest must be declared to editors by the authors and reviewers; editors must also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to the editor-in-chief; if a reviewer is aware of any potential conflict of interest, they should inform the editor who has invited them to conduct a review,
– clear identification of the authorship – authors should ensure that only individuals who made a substantial contribution to the work can be rewarded with authorship,
– encouraging practices that prevent guest, gift and ghost authorship – authors are asked to submit a written declaration specifying the authorship of their submitted manuscripts; any detected cases of such misconduct shall be disclosed and documented,
– requirement of originality – only original manuscripts which meet the aims and scope of our journal will undergo the reviewing process,
– clear statement that fabrication of results and making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour – such manuscripts and published articles will be rejected and retracted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes an unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable,
– we also expect our authors and editors to uphold the ethical standards observed by the academic community worldwide and raise any concerns by emailing: kmsi@uwr.edu.pl.