The Editorial Office anonymises submitted articles and forwards them to the Editor-in-Chief, the issue editors and/or the Editorial Board for approval.
The Editor-in-Chief, the issue editors and/or the Editorial Board reserve the right to reject any article that does not meet the formal requirements (guidelines for the preparation of texts published in the journal) or the standards of scientific quality.
Each article is assigned to two external reviewers. The review process follows a double-blind peer review system.
The review takes the form of a written report and concludes with an unequivocal recommendation: accepted as submitted, accepted subject to revisions, or rejected.
The identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors. Once a year, the journal publishes a list of reviewers on its website.
The review process is supplemented by an originality check carried out using Crossref Similarity Check.
Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
1. General Principles
Neophilologica acknowledges that artificial intelligence (AI) tools, particularly generative language models, can contribute to the research and scholarly writing process. However, their use must comply with the fundamental principles of scientific integrity: transparency, human responsibility, and traceability of contributions.
This policy is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It is intended to evolve in line with changes to these normative frameworks.
Authors, reviewers, and editors remain fully and individually responsible for the content they produce, whether or not it was developed with the assistance of an AI tool.
This policy applies to all submissions received from its effective date onward.
2. For Peer Reviewers
2.1 Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for evaluation are confidential documents. In order to preserve their confidentiality, reviewers are asked to refrain from downloading, copying, or entering all or part of a manuscript's content into an external AI tool, including in the form of short excerpts. This precaution applies to any system that may store, index, or reuse the content submitted to it.
2.2 Limited Use
Reviewers may use an AI tool in a very limited manner, solely to improve the linguistic quality of their own review report.
2.3 Responsibility
Review reports must reflect the reviewer's personal scientific judgement and be based on an independent critical assessment. AI may under no circumstances be used to formulate an appraisal, a recommendation, or a decision regarding the manuscript under review.
2.4 Reporting Suspected Use
If a reviewer suspects that a manuscript has been largely written by an AI tool without this having been declared, they are invited to report this to the editor in their review or through a separate communication. The editor will decide on the appropriate course of action, which may include a request for clarification addressed to the authors.
10.31261/NEO
Français (France)
English