At Neophilologica, we are dedicated to maintaining the trustworthiness, veracity of scholarly research and high ethical standards in all stages of our publication process.

We achieve this through strict adherence to the ethical standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing).

These principles guide the ethical duties and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors and publisher involved in the publication process. Authors, reviewers, editors and publisher must adhere to these guidelines throughout the whole publication process. Our adherence to these principles guarantees the highest ethical standards.

1. Principles of Conduct for Authors

During the process of submitting their work, it is imperative that authors comply with all the listed requirements. Otherwise, their submissions risk being returned for not conforming to the set standards.

• Reporting Standards:

Authors are required to truthfully, transparently, and comprehensively report their research. This necessitates a thorough explanation of the research methods, a fair and impartial discussion of the research's significance, and an accurate presentation of the data.

• Originality and Plagiarism:

Neophilologica is committed to upholding best practices in publication and protecting the rights of our authors. Authors must ensure their work is original and hasn't been previously published. All information sources, including ideas, data, and textual content, must be properly attributed. Direct quotations, paraphrases, and ideas must be correctly cited.

To ensure that these conditions are met, the submitted articles may undergo scrutiny through the Crossref Similarity Check and other software designed to check originality or duplication.

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

We take claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles seriously and investigate them thoroughly. If an article is found to have plagiarized other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or insufficient acknowledgement, or if the authorship is contested, we may take action such as publishing a correction, retracting the article, taking up the matter with relevant academic bodies and societies or pursuing legal action.

Regarding preprints, they can be disseminated freely at any given time and place. Sharing the preprints, for example, on a preprint server, will not be regarded as a prior publication.

• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:

It is unethical to submit identical research manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously. Presenting an article certifies that the article is not being considered for publication elsewhere and that the work will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in any other language without the written permission of the copyright holder.

   Similarly, reusing data or findings from past research without adding significant new content, and without openly and explicitly referencing the previous work, is not permissible.

• Acknowledgement of Sources:

Authors must acknowledge all sources of data and ideas, both published and unpublished, that have contributed to their research. Proper citation is always mandatory. Further, authors should acknowledge the contributions of individuals or organisations that have provided critical support to their research.

• Authorship of the Paper:

Authorship should only include individuals who have significantly contributed to the planning, design, or analysis of the research presented. All such contributors should be recognised as co-authors.

• Transparency and Conflict of Interest:

Authors are required to reveal any personal, financial, or professional affiliations that may have influenced their research. All sources of research funding should be disclosed.

• Once the article is approved for publication, this information must be resubmitted in a finalised form which requires a signature.

2. Principles of Conduct for Reviewers

• Peer Review Process:

Neophilologica utilises a double-blind peer-review system. The reviewers support the editorial choices. The editorial staff is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the reviewers' identities.

• Confidentiality:

Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the review procedure, avoiding disclosing manuscript details or its review, during or after the review process, except for information disclosed by the journal.

• Objectivity and Constructiveness:

Reviewers should maintain impartiality in their evaluations and provide constructive and professional feedback based exclusively on the intellectual content and merit of the manuscript.

• Timeliness:

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within a designated timeframe to assist in the prompt publication of the manuscript.

• Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers should assist in identifying cases, if any, where relevant work has not been cited in the manuscript.

3. Principles of Conduct for Editors

• Fair Play:

An editor should review manuscripts based exclusively on their intellectual content and merit.

• Confidentiality:

The manuscript details shared with the editors and the editorial team must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial consultants, and the publisher.

• Conflict of Interest:

Editors should reveal any conflicts of interest and abstain if they consider it necessary, from handling a manuscript to prevent potential bias in the review and publication-decision process.

• Decisions on publication:

The editor should base decisions on the acceptance or the refusal of manuscripts solely on their importance, originality, clarity, and relevance.

• Addressing Ethical Issues:

Editors should make every feasible effort to maintain the quality of the published material, acknowledging their role and accountability for all stages of publication. They should be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, and apologies when required.

• Allegations of Misconduct:

Allegations of research misconduct will be rigorously investigated, and we will abide by COPE's guidance to address the issue, a process that may involve reaching out to the author(s) and their affiliated institution(s).

The editors will work closely with the publisher to take all necessary steps to clarify the allegations of research misconduct and correct the offending article in cases of suspected or established scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism. This covers the speedy release of an update, clarification, or, in the most severe situation, the retraction of the problematic paper. If a retraction happens, the retracted paper will be clearly watermarked as retracted and a notice prsented in the journal.

The editors and the publisher will work together to identify and stop the publishing of any papers that include evidence of research misconduct. Under no circumstances should this misconduct be encouraged or knowingly allowed to occur.