CODE OF ETHICS

The editorial board of the quarterly Papers in Linguistics has implemented policies aimed at preventing all forms of academic misconduct, in particular the practices of ghostwriting and guest authorship.

Ghostwriting refers to a situation in which a person who made a significant contribution to the creation of a publication is neither listed as a co-author nor acknowledged for their involvement in the development of the manuscript. A so-called ghost author is someone omitted from the list of authors, despite meeting the criteria for authorship. To prevent such cases, the editorial board requires authors to disclose their affiliations and to indicate all individuals who contributed to the concept of the study, data collection, or analysis. The person submitting the manuscript is responsible for the accuracy of this information.

Guest authorship (also known as honorary or courtesy authorship) occurs when an individual is listed as an author or co-author despite having made little or no contribution to the manuscript. To prevent this practice, the editorial board requires a statement of the percentage contribution of each co-author for manuscripts with multiple authors. This statement must be signed by all listed authors.

The policies adopted by the editorial board of Papers in Linguistics comply with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at www.publicationethics.org.

In cases of confirmed academic misconduct, the editorial board follows the procedures established by COPE. In any instance of suspected unethical conduct, the editors act in accordance with these guidelines, including contacting the author(s) and taking into account their explanations during the resolution process.

 The procedure of the editorial board with regard to:

1. suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the submitted manuscript: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the extent of overlap/redundancy using the anti-plagiarism software or other sources → depending on the results of examination concerning the extent of overlap/redundancy and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correcting the text or further proceeding;
2. suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the published article: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the extent of overlap/redundancy using the anti-plagiarism software or other sources → depending on the results of examination concerning the degree of overlap/redundancy and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correcting the text or further proceeding;
3. suspected plagiarism in the submitted manuscript: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the degree of copying → depending on the results of the examination concerning the extent of overlap/repetitions or response or lack of response from the author, a decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, notifying the author of the other journal involved in this case or the publisher of the plagiarised book, correcting the text or further proceedings;
4. suspected plagiarism (plagiarism is defined as using fragments of the text and/or data without attribution of authorship, presented as if they were authored by the plagiarist) in the published article: gathering full documentary evidence→ checking the degree of copying→ depending on the results of the examination concerning overlap/repetitions and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication from the electronic version, placing a note about this issue in the subsequent published volume in the traditional and electronic version, notifying the author of the second journal involved in this case or the publisher of the plagiarized book if the accusations are confirmed;
5. suspected fabricated data in the submitted manuscript: a request to provide evidence to the person reporting the suspicion concerning data fabrication → data analyses, contact with the author, possibly consulting a third party → depending on the proceeding results, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correction – in case of an unintentional error, or further proceeding in case of unfounded charges;
6. suspected fabricated data in the published paper: requests to provide evidence to the person reporting the suspicion concerning data fabrication → data analysis, contact with the author, possibly consulting a third party → depending on the results of the proceeding, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication if the charges prove are true, corrections in case of an unintentional error;
7. changes in the list of authors before publication of the text: explaining the reasons for changing the authorship, checking, verifying whether all authors agree to add/remove another person → if so – adding / removing the author, if not – suspending the review/publication until the issue of authorship is settled by all authors, if necessary, through their institutions;
8. changes in the author list after publication of the text: explaining the reasons for changing the authorship, checking whether all authors agree to add/remove a given person → if so, adding/removing the author, if so – publishing the correction, if not – explaining to the authors that the changes will not be made until the consent of all authors is obtained, if it is obtained, publishing the correction, if not, submitting the case to the author's institution with a request to settle the problem, publishing the correction if it is required by the institution;
9. suspected ghost authorship, gift authorship or guest authorship: reviewing the text and the author's statement → in case of suspected omission/unjustified addition of any person, contact with the authors to clarify any doubts → in case of necessary changes in the author list, obtaining the consent of all authors → submitting for review/printing.

 Any detected cases of scientific misconduct will be disclosed, including notification of appropriate entities (institutions employing the authors and/or supervising bodies). To prevent such situations, we request that the authors comply with ethical requirements and provide a statement proving that the paper is an original result of their research, indicating their percentage contribution in the creation of the text.