“Philology matters” scientific and methodical journal is consistent with common ethical norms and standards for scientific publications and takes all necessary measures to avoid any practices of unconscientious publications. Editorial team of the journal, in its activity, follows the scientific nature, the principles of objectivity, professionalism, credibility. Collaboration with the authors is based on the principles of fairness, politeness, unbiasedness, honesty and transparency.
Principles the editor of the journal must follow
In his/her activity, the editor carries the responsibility to publishing copyrighted works that apply the necessity of correspondence to the following fundamental principles:
- Editor follows the standards of editorial ethics and puts all the efforts to avoid its violation.
- Editor of the journal carries a personal responsibility to decision making on the publication, which should always base on trustworthiness of the reviewed work and its scientific significance. Editor must make fair and objective decisions, independent from commercial interests, and organize of unbiased reviewing. Editor may consult with other editors and reviewers in making decisions.
- Editor must make decisions about publishing materials, following the main criteria below: correspondence of the submission to the journal subject matter, topicality, novelty and scientific significance of submitted article; clarity of the statement; trustworthiness of results and completion of conclusions. The quality of the research and its topicality are keys to decision making on publication.
- Editor needs to take all sensible measures for assuring the high quality of publications and the protection of confidentiality of personal information. Upon revealing errors of semantic, grammatical, stylistic and other kinds of mistakes, the editorial office is obliged to take all measures to eliminate them.
- Editor takes the recommendations of reviewers into account upon making the final decision on publishing the article. The responsibility on the decision about publication fully lays on the editorial board of the journal.
- Editor justifies his/her decision in case of acceptance or denial of the article.
- Editor gives the author of reviewed material a chance to justify his/her researching position.
- Editor encourages discussions and provides the opportunity for stating the viewpoint of opponents.
- Editor must evaluate the intellectual content of submissions regardless of their authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, social background, citizenship and political preferences.
- Journal’s editor and members of the editorial board must not disclosure the information about the submitted work to somebody else, excluding the author, reviewers (potential reviewers).
- Editor guards the integrity of publications, renders assistance in improving submitted works through doing literary editing of the articles, making amendments where necessary, and make justified denials on the works not corresponding to the requirements of scientific articles, the research and publishing ethics. Editor leaves the right to deny the publication of articles in himself/herself in case of mismatching with abovementioned rules.
- It is prohibited to use unpublicized data from the submitted-to-review work without the written agreement of the author. Information and ideas, received in the course of reviewing and communicating with the author, in case they have some advantages, must be saved confidential and not be used for personal benefits.
- Editors must make a refusal to accept reviewing works in case of the presence of interests conflict as a result of competitive, cooperative and other type of interaction and relation with authors, and possibly, with other organizations, related to the submission.
Principles the author of a scientific publication must follow
Author (or a team of authors) realizes that they carry the primary responsibility for the novelty and trustworthiness of the results of scientific researches, which assume the compliance of following principles:
- Authors must guarantee originality of researches, revealed in the article. Upon using the works or words of other authors, links to the source and quotes must be indicated. One should keep in mind that over-use of adoptions are unethical, whereas the editorial office has zero tolerance to plagiarism in its all forms.
- Authors carry responsibility for the trustworthiness of the results of scientific researches. Deliberately making fallacious and fabricated statements are not accepted. Authors of publicized materials take responsibility for selection and accuracy of facts, quotations, statistical data and other information.
- Persons who made a significant contribution to the concept, project, execution and interpretation of submitted works are ranked among authors.
- It is necessary to exclude the cases of authorship, when particular persons get into the list of authors due to their title, reputation or supposed influence, as well, due to personal relations and for payment. If there are other persons who participated in separate stages of the undertaken research, they can be mentioned in the text of the article.
- Author must make sure that all co-authors are introduced and agreed to approve the final variant of the article for publication.
- Authors must fulfil the requirements of publishers about the fact that the work must not be simultaneously published in more than one edition.
- Authors must work with editors for quicker amendment of their work in case of observance of some errors in the publication.
- Author must follow ethical norms, addressing the critics or remarks in relation to the researches of third persons.
- Reviewer must also draw editor’s attention to the reveal of essential similarity or match between the work being reviewed and any other published works in the sphere of scientific competence of the reviewer.
- Information received from submitted-for-publishing work, but not approved for publication, must not be used in personal researches without written agreement of the author. Information and ideas, received in the course of reviewing must be saved confidential and not be used for personal benefits.
Principle the reviewer must follow
Reviewer makes a scientific examination of authorship materials, as a result of which, his/her actions must have unprejudiced character that includes the correspondence of following principles:
- Reviewer is obliged to follow the due terms/deadlines of reviewing the articles and confidentiality of assessments. Reviewer, realizing the lack of qualification for looking over the submission or having insufficient time for operative execution of reviewing task must notify the editor and request to be excluded from the reviewing process of a particular submission.
- Reviewers must not participate in case of the presence of interests conflict as a result of concurrent, cooperative and other type of interaction and relation with authors, and possibly, with other organizations, related to the submission.
- Reviewer must scrutinize the submitted-for-review work as a confidential document. Submitted work must not be opened and discussed upon with any persons, who do not have an authority presented by the editor.
- Reviewer examines the topicality, scientific significance, the level of novelty, theoretical and practical significance, correspondence to the journal’s themes and recommends (does not recommend) for publishing.
- Reviewer must do an objective and unbiased evaluation. Reviewer should express his/her opinions clearly and reasonably, where necessary confirming its link to the source.
- Reviewers should reveal significant published works, corresponding the theme and not included in the bibliography of the submitted work. For any confirmation (observance, conclusion or argument), published earlier, the work must contain a link in accordance with the bibliographic links. Reviewer must also draw editor’s attention to the reveal of essential similarity or match between the work being reviewed and any other published works in the sphere of scientific competence of the reviewer.
- Information received from submitted-for-publishing work, but not approved for publication, must not be used in personal researches without written agreement of the author. Information and ideas, received in the course of reviewing must be saved confidential and not be used for personal benefits.
