Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
General Ethical Standards
The editorial team of "LingVaria" complies the Code of Good Manners in Science, principles of ethics formulated by the Word Ethics Team operating at the Polish Language Council and on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (www.publicationethics.org). Articles submitted for publication are evaluated only in terms of content and published due to their value. The evaluation and publication in the journal do not affect: sex, religion, race, origin, sexual orientation or political beliefs of the author.
Editor`s Responsibilities
- Confidentiality
The Editor in Chief and any member of editorial team must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, the editorial team and the publisher.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor?s own research without the express explicit written consent of the author(s).
- Publication Decision
The Editor in Chief of ?LingVaria? is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. He takes into account the results of reviews and might include opinions of Editorial Team and Advisory Board.
Reviewer?s Responsibilities
- Selection of Reviewers and the Promptness of Peer-Review
The reviewer who does not feel well-qualified to evaluate the content of the submitted text or knows that he/she is unable to prepare the review in the proposed time, should immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief that he could contact another reviewer.
- Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others unless persons authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers should keep objectivity. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly, using appropriate supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and any other published materials data of which they have personal knowledge.
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal advantage. Reviewer should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have a conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.
Author?s Responsibilities
- Reporting Standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Featuring of fraudulent or inaccurate statements, when the author is aware of it, is treated as unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
- Originality and Plagiarism
Authors have to ascertain that they submit an original work. They should make sure that all cited publications and their authors are acknowledged or referenced properly.
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publications
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. This procedure is considered as unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- Acknowledgement of Sources
An author must noted all cases of using results of research of other scholars. They have to include in references all works which influence the submission.
- Authorship of a Manuscript
The author is obliged to provide information about people who in any way contributed to the creation of the article. Such behavior is aimed at avoiding the situation referred to as ghostwriting, i.e. hiding the participation in the creation of the article of people other than officially appearing in the headline of the text. Therefore, all co-authors of the article should be given, with their affiliation, and who is the author of the concepts, assumptions, methods, etc. used in the preparation of the publication. If assistance from third parties or institutions is involved, the appropriate annotation should be included in the footnote. The contradiction with scientific reliability is the co-authorship of people who did not contribute to the publication (guest authorship).
If the text is signed by more than one author, it should include (in a footnote) an exact description of the contribution made by individual co-authors (giving information, who is the author of the concepts, assumptions, methods, etc. used in the preparation of the publication). One should also disclose (eg in the form of thanks) the names of all persons who contributed to the publication and are not authors..
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed, for example these financed by National Science Centre Poland or the other institution and association.
- Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly inform the journal?s Editorial Team and cooperate with it to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
