ETHICAL STANDARDS

The work of the Еditorial Вoard of the scientific periodical “New Philology”  is based on the principles of science, objectivity, unbiased assessment, professionalism, information support of innovations, and observance of the norms of the publishers’ ethics.

The editorial board of the journal “New philology” maintains a certain level of requirements in the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the editorial board. These rules are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, adopted in the scientific community.

The editorial calls for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE).

 

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should, without prejudice, review all manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism or falsification.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of the results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article, as well as falsified references, constitute unethical behavior and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, the editorial board forms a list of domestic and foreign specialists in philology who can act as reviewers of submitted articles (with their consent). The head of the editorial board is responsible for organizing the reviewing of articles and the maintenance of academic integrity.

All scientific articles that come to the editorial board of the journal «New Philology» and meet the formal criteria are considered at the editorial board meeting on the subject of correspondence with the topic of the journal. The circle of reviewers is then determined. Reviewing of materials is absolutely anonymous for the author and the reviewer (double-blind to ensure objectivity in manuscript evaluation).

The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors. If the selected reviewer is not sure that that their scientific profile corresponds to the topic of the article, or reveals a conflict of interest, they must inform the editor-in-chief and return the manuscript immediately.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should bring to the attention of the editor-in-chief any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.

Reviewers evaluate articles by the following criteria:

1. Compliance with the direction of the publication.
2. Compliance of the structure of the article with the established requirements.
3. Level of justification of relevance and scientific novelty.
4. Degree of disclosure of the declared topic.
5. Presence of original scientific results.
6. Compliance of the style and language of the article with the level acceptable for publication.
7. Presence of appropriate references to primary sources.
8. Reflection of the content of the article in the annotations in the volume and keywords specified in the requirements.

The reviewer also assesses the author's knowledge of the scientific literature on the topic being discussed, including international experience; clarity of language and style.

The reviewer provides conclusions on the advisability of the publication by filling out and sending to the editorial office the Review Form, indicating the main shortcomings of the article (if any), as well as the conclusion about the possibility of publication: “recommended”, “recommended provided the shortcomings are corrected” or “not recommended”.

Further advice on the ethical aspects of the reviewers' work is contained in the COPE Code of Ethics for Reviewers.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The editorial board of the journal “New Philology” adheres to the principles and norms for preventing and resolving conflicts of interest in the interaction between the Author, Reviewer and the Editorial Board.

The objectivity of the reviewing process and trust in the content of scientific publications largely depend on the effective identification and consideration of potential conflicts of interest when making a decision on publication.

A conflict of interest may arise if a reviewer, a member of the editorial board or an employee of the editorial board has personal or professional ties with the author of the manuscript that may affect the impartiality of the decision-making. Such ties may include: family relationships, employment relationships, financial interests, academic competition, personal sympathy or antipathy, etc.

Editors should not participate in making decisions regarding articles in which they have a conflict of interest. In such cases, they transfer responsibilities to another member of the editorial board.

The editorial board reserves the right to request additional information or take action if an undeclared conflict of interest is identified after publication.

 

JOURNAL POLICY ON PLAGIARISM

Respect for intellectual property rights is the guiding principle of the professional ethics of the journal "New Philology". Plagiarism is a clear violation of such ethical principles. According to the provisions on the system for preventing and detecting academic plagiarism in scientific and educational works of employees and applicants for higher education, the editorial board checks the articles accepted for publication for the absence of academic plagiarism.

The journal rejects any materials that do not comply with the requirements for preventing plagiarism.

The types of plagiarism are:

• copying and publishing work done by another author as one's own;
• verbatim copying of text fragments (from a phrase to a set of sentences) of someone else's work into one's own without proper citation;
• making minor edits to the copied material (rewording sentences, changing the order of words in them, etc.) without proper citation;
• excessive use of paraphrases (retelling someone else's thoughts in your own words) without citing the original text.

The Editorial Board guarantees high-quality anonymous peer-review of articles and their check for plagiarism using StrikePlagiarism.com by the Polish company Plagiat.pl.

 

USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The use of artificial intelligence in writing an article may be allowed if it is necessary for the research and justified in its methodology, only if the fact of its use is indicated. At the same time, we emphasize the need to adhere to the principles of academic integrity, transparency and responsibility when using artificial intelligence tools. Authors are required to clearly indicate in the text of the publication where and how AI tools were used (for example, for processing large amounts of data, preparation of illustrations and graphic materials, etc.). It is prohibited to submit research entirely created by artificial intelligence, with AI-falsified references, without a significant contribution of the authors to the scientific content and its interpretation.

Authors bear full responsibility for the reliability, originality and quality of the materials, even if part of the work was performed using АІ tools. The use of АІ during editorial processes (editing, reviewing, etc.) is not practised.