Publishing Ethics

The editors of "Filologia Polska" have implemented and applied the guidelines the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in order to eliminate various publication abuses (Core practices). Therefore, it draws attention to the latter both at the stage of preparation for printing and after the materials have been published in print. The yearly secretariat is obliged to document any signs of undesirable behavior.

Unacceptable attitudes may be associated with (e.g.):

  1. plagiarism
    • a subsequent and redundant submission of a previously published text
    • submission of a previously announced text translated into another language
    • publishing someone else's text under his or her own name
  2. self-plagiarism
    • posting previously published fragments of their own text without informing them about it
  3. false authors' credentials (guest authors or ghosts)
  4. contribution level
    • uncertainty or lack of mutual agreement among the authors as to the scale of the contribution to the content of the submitted text
  5. fabrication
    • falsified data on purpose
    • presenting fabricated data to prove the alleged truth of the controversial thesis
  6. conflict of interest
    • refusal of disclosure of some confidential data (including personal data)
  7. relationships between author(s) and reviewer(s)
    • family relationship
    • professional dependencies
  8. unethical behavior by reviewer(s)
    • appropriation of authors' ideas by reviewers

Members of the editorial office of "Filologia Polska" analyze thoroughly each report of suspected publication abuse, which enables the achievement of the highest possible level of risk reduction in this regard. Such submissions may come from any source, including members of the Scientific Council, editors of subsequent issues, editorial staff, reviewers, or readers.

The basic activities of the editorial office of "Filologia Polska" aimed at counteracting misuse of publications are (among others):

  • the careful observation of the authors' reactions during the pre-publication stage of the articles submitted for publication
  • selection of reviewers based on the principle of their substantive competence
  • peer-review process (where the author and appraiser do not know each other's
    identity) increases the level of reliability and fairness of the final assessments
  • each text receives two reviews, in some cases (if necessary) three
  • continuously increasing the number of members in the Scientific Council and Review Team
  • close cooperation between the Editorial Team, the Scientific Council and the Review Team in order to increase the level of objectivity in the process of evaluating submitted texts
  • 100% of the Review Team members are not affiliated with the University of Zielona Góra (the publisher of "Filologia Polska")
  • nearly 50% of the Scientific Council members are foreigners
  • much more than 50% of the members of the Scientific Council are not affiliated with the University of Zielona Góra (publisher of "Filologia Polska")
  • transparency of the editorial staff's ethical approach to publication issues
  • transparency of the editorial board's approach to selection and review procedures, schedules, and requirements
  • involving as many experts as possible in the selection and review processes during the publishing stages
  • the explicit expectation of the editors regarding the originality of the submitted works
  • editorial invitations are unique and are associated with consecutive issues (therefore, the submitted texts correspond to a specific need for publication)
  • author's commitment in the publishing agreement to submit the original text without infringing the rights of third parties
  • authors' continuous contact with the editors attests to the credibility of the publisher
  • source documentation is obligatory, enabling verification of the reliability and reliability of the authors
  • taking into account readers' observations and reflections on the content of the yearbook
  • promoting the needs and benefits of the publishing process in line with ethical laws

Common symptoms of publication abuse (e.g.):

  • refusal to make corrections suggested by reviewer(s)
  • unable to introduce the proposed changes or additions
  • wrong corrections
  • hesitation as to the content of the main threads of the submitted article
  • co-authors' conflicting views
  • rude reactions from author or reviewer
  • the reviewer's obvious reluctance towards the text under review
  • delays
  • threat of withdrawal of the text submitted for printing

Solutions to problems and final decisions (e.g.):

  • difficulties diagnosis
  • requiring any necessary adjustments
  • clarification of doubts
  • discussing and explaining the identified problems with the author(s), reviewers, or people who have observed abuse in the field of publication
  • request an additional review
  • documentation of publication abuse cases
  • denied publication

Details of the principles and procedures described above (together with justification and practical advice) are detailed in Polish diagrams by Ewa Rozkosz — Procedure in case of suspicion of a redundant (duplicate) publication.