Publication Ethics
Academic Journal of Modern Philology is a double-blind, peer-reviewed journal which aims to follow the highest standards in publication ethics and applies general ethical principles regarding duties and responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors, readers, in particular those defined and recommended by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and contained in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.
The standards of expected ethical behaviour apply to all parties involved in publishing in the Academic Journal of Modern Philology journal.
GENERAL INFORMATION
All articles published in Academic Journal of Modern Philology are available online at the journal’s official website: https://ajmp.uwr.edu.pl as well as at the selected databases without any charges and free to access.
Academic Journal of Modern Philology does not request any article submission, review, publication and processing charges.
Only original papers of sufficient quality which meet aims and scope of AJMP will be accepted. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable.
Non-discriminatory language is mandatory for all manuscripts.
Any detected manifestations of unethical behaviour and cases of misconduct shall be disclosed and documented. Such articles shall be denied publication in AJMP.
DUTIES FOR EDITORS
Editorial board monitors the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.
Fair play: the journal editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their intellectual and scientific merit. In case of conflicting recommendations of reviewers, the editors request for additional review.
Publication decision: the journal editors conduct the initial assessment before a submitted manuscript is sent to reviewers. The initial decision to accept or reject a manuscript for review is based on its originality, clarity, importance, research validity and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will or will not be published in AJMP based on the scientific validity of the paper in question, its importance, the reviewers’ comments and legal requirements in force.
Confidentiality: the journal editors and the editorial board ensure that all materials submitted to AJMP remain confidential and any information about a submitted manuscript will not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: thejournal editors and the editorial board will not use unpublished data and materials disclosed in a submitted manuscripts for their own research output without the authors’ explicit written consent. A collective list of reviewers for each volume of AJMP, without disclosing reviewers of any particular submission, is published online at the journal’s website.
Involvement and cooperation: when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted or published paper, editors (in conjunction with the publishers) will take responsive measures. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, regardless the stage of publication. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable. If the need arises, editors are willing to publish corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, retractions, apologies or other note as may be relevant.
Retractions of the articles: the journal editors will consider retracting a publication mainly if a. they have a clear evidence of fabrication, falsification or unreliability of the findings, b. it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research, c. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, disclosure, permission, justification. Notices of retraction shall be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and author(s) in the retraction heading, clearly identify the retracted article, c. state who and why is retracting the article. The retracted status of the articles will be indicated as clearly as possible.
DUTIES FOR AUTHORS
Reporting standards: authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work and results as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Only original papers of sufficient quality that meet the aims and scope of AJMP will undergo the reviewing process. The fabrication of results, fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and will not be accepted.
Data access and retention: authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should retain such data after publication of their article.
Originality, plagiarism and concurrent publication: authors are obliged to secure any third-party copyright permissions for quotations, reprinting images, diagrams, tables, reproduction of any copyright works used in their paper. By submitting their article to AJMP, authors declare that their work is an original one, prepared independently and not published or submitted anywhere before or simultaneously.
Authorship of the manuscript: the authorship of submitted manuscript should accurately reflect individuals’ significant contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, execution, analysis/interpretation of the study. All those who made contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the paper. In order to avoid ghostwriting and guest authorship, the authors or multi-author texts are requested to specify the contributions of each author in the publication.
Acknowledgement of sources: the proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work. The authors are also requested to provide information concerning the financing sources of the manuscript’s publication (e.g. the number of the grant and the name of the institution providing the grant) and indicate the contribution of scholarly research institutions to its preparation (by unambiguously specifying the author’s/authors’ professional affiliation).
Fundamental errors in published works: when authors discover significant errors or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the journal editor-in-chief or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
DUTIES FOR REVIEWERS
By accepting to evaluate a submitted manuscript, reviewers agree to:
– provide a reliable, objective, impartial and properly justified evaluation of the assessed work,
– respect the agreed upon deadlines,
– keep the peer-review procedure confidential,
– disclose any conflicts of interest,
– inform the editorial board about any suspicion of ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism and/or autoplagiarism and to point out the dubious fragment(s) of the article.
Contribution to editorial decisions: each submission to AJMP is assessed by two independent external reviewers affiliated to an institution different from that of the author. The review process is double-blind. The peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and help authors to improve their paper.
Promptness: reviewers who feel they lack the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript or can be unbiased in their assessment or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. Reviewers should also inform the journal promptly if their circumstances change and they cannot fulfil the original agreement or if an extension is necessary.
Confidentiality: all manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. They cannot be used until they are published. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively; observations and recommendations should be formulated clearly for the benefit of authors who could use them for improving the manuscript. The objective, reliable, impartial and properly justified evaluation should refer to the assessed work, not the authors themselves. Reviewers are requested to complete a review form. In case of conflicting recommendations of reviewers, the editors request for additional review.
Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers are obliged to inform editors of any unacknowledged use or incorporation of work of other researchers in thr reviewed manuscript. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.
Disclosure and conflict of interests: reviewers decline their duty if they discover a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing a paper. They should immediately notify the editors, decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers could be contacted.
Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare the acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing concrete reasons. Within the agreed time, reviewers are requested to send in their recommendation for publishing the paper.
