Publication ethics

Neophilologica is committed to ensuring the reliability and truthfulness of scientific research and to upholding high ethical standards at every stage of the publication process.

This commitment is reflected in strict adherence to the ethical standards set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

These principles govern the ethical duties and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors and the publisher involved in the publication process. All parties are required to comply with them throughout the process. Our adherence to these principles ensures that the highest ethical standards are maintained.

Guidelines for authors

When submitting their work, authors are required to comply with all the requirements listed below. Failure to do so may result in the submission being returned for non-compliance with the established standards.

Research reporting standards

Authors are required to report their research truthfully, transparently and comprehensively. This entails a rigorous description of the methods employed, a fair and impartial discussion of the significance of the findings, and an accurate presentation of the data.

Originality and plagiarism

Neophilologica is committed to upholding best practices in publishing and to protecting the rights of its authors. Authors must ensure that their work is original and has not been previously published. All sources of information — including ideas, data and textual content — must be properly attributed. Direct quotations, paraphrases and borrowed ideas must be appropriately referenced.

To verify compliance with these requirements, articles are subjected to thorough screening using Crossref Similarity Check and other tools designed to detect similarities or duplications.

Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable and constitutes a serious breach of ethical standards.

Allegations of plagiarism or misuse of published articles are taken very seriously and are subject to thorough investigation. If an article is found to have plagiarised other works, to include copyrighted material from third parties without permission or adequate acknowledgement, or if its authorship is disputed, appropriate measures may be taken, including the publication of a correction, retraction of the article, referral to the relevant academic bodies and learned societies, or the initiation of legal proceedings.

With regard to preprints, these may be freely disseminated at any time and in any venue. Posting a preprint, for example on a preprint server, will not be considered prior publication.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

It is unethical to submit identical research manuscripts to more than one journal simultaneously. Submission of an article to Neophilologica constitutes a certification that the article is not under consideration for publication elsewhere and that the work will not be published in the same form, including in another language, without the written consent of the copyright holder.

Likewise, the reuse of data or findings from previous research is only permissible if it is accompanied by a significant new contribution and by explicit and transparent reference to the earlier work.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors must cite all sources of data and ideas, whether published or unpublished, that have contributed to their research. Proper referencing is always mandatory. Authors must also acknowledge the contributions of individuals or organisations that have provided essential support for their work.

Authorship

Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the design, planning or analysis of the research presented may be listed as authors. All contributors meeting this criterion must be recognised as co-authors.

Transparency and conflicts of interest

Authors are required to disclose any personal, financial or professional affiliations that may have influenced their research. All sources of funding must be declared.

Once the article has been approved for publication, this information must be resubmitted in finalised form with the author's signature.

Guidelines for reviewers

Peer review process

Neophilologica employs a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers support editorial decision-making. The editorial team is responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of reviewers' identities.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the review process and refrain from disclosing details of the manuscript or its evaluation, during or after the process, except for information made public by the journal.

Objectivity and constructiveness

Reviewers must demonstrate impartiality in their assessments and provide constructive and professional feedback based solely on the intellectual content and scientific quality of the manuscript.

Timeliness

Reviewers must complete their evaluations within the allotted timeframe in order to contribute to the timely publication of manuscripts.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should, where appropriate, identify relevant works that have not been cited in the manuscript.

Guidelines for editors

Fairness

Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their intellectual content and scientific quality.

Confidentiality

Information relating to manuscripts shared with editors and the editorial team must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial consultants and the publisher.

Conflicts of interest

Editors must declare any conflicts of interest and, where they deem it necessary, recuse themselves from handling a manuscript in order to eliminate any risk of bias in the review and publication decision process.

Publication decisions

Editors must base their decisions to accept or reject manuscripts solely on their significance, originality, clarity and relevance to the scope of the journal.

Handling ethical issues

Editors must make every effort to ensure the quality of published material, fully assuming their role and responsibility at every stage of publication. They must be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications or apologies as circumstances require.

Allegations of misconduct

Allegations of research misconduct are subject to rigorous investigation in accordance with COPE guidelines. This process may involve contacting the authors and their affiliated institution(s).

Editors work closely with the publisher to take all necessary steps to investigate allegations of misconduct and, where appropriate, to correct the article in question — whether the case involves suspected or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism. These steps include the prompt publication of an update, a clarification or, in the most serious cases, retraction of the article. In the event of a retraction, the article will be clearly identified with a "retracted" watermark and a retraction notice will be published in the journal.