General principles
Honest research requires that everyone involved adheres to the high standards of academic practice in the given field. To ensure the integrity and scientific quality of the papers published in “Prace Literaturoznawcze” annual, as well as to eliminate unethical practices, the editorial board in the process of publication follows recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics procedures http://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20Polish%20flowcharts.pdf , guidelines of the “Ethics in Research and Publication” Elsevier programme and guidelines of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Code of Good Practice for Scientific Publications by UNESCO and the Code of the National Centre for Research with regard to the integrity of research and the application for funds for the research purposes.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends following these procedures when unethical practices are applied:
(a) Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript
The reviewer informs the editor about the suspicion, and the editor asks the author to explain the situation, and the author explains. If the author admits his guilt, the manuscript should be rejected. If the explanation is satisfactory, such information should be passed on to the reviewer. If the author does not respond, the editor informs the author’s institution, rejects the manuscript and informs the reviewer about it.
(a) Suspected redundant publication in a published article
A reader informs the editor about the suspicion, and the editor checks the degree of overlapping/repetitions. If the texts overlap to a great extent, the editor writes to the author, who explains. If the author does not respond, the editor contacts the author’s institution and informs the reader. If the extent of overlap is small, the editor clarifies it with the author and informs the reader. If there are no overlapping parts, the editor informs the reader.
(a) Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
A reviewer informs the editor about the suspicion, and the editor verifies: if the plagiarism is evident, he/she writes to the author. If the author admits his guilt, the manuscript should be rejected, and the reviewer should be informed. If the author does not respond, the editor writes to the author’s institution. The author should be cautioned. Informing the author’s superiors can be considered. If the degree of similarity turns out to be low, the author should be informed about it in a neutral manner and asked to rephrase the repetitions. The reviewer should also be informed.
(a) Suspected plagiarism in a published article
A reader informs the editor about the suspicion, and the editor checks the extent to which the text has been copied. If plagiarism is evident, he/she writes to the author. If the author admits his/her guilt, the publication of a note about withdrawing the publication should be considered, and the reader should be informed. If the author does not respond, the editor writes to the author’s institution. The author should be cautioned. Informing the author’s superiors can be considered. If the degree of similarity turns out to be low, the author should be informed about it in a neutral manner and asked to rephrase the repetitions. The reader should also be informed.
(a) Suspected data fabrication in a submitted manuscript
A reviewer reports suspected data fabrication (seeking another reviewer’s opinion may be considered); the editor asks the author for an explanation; if these are satisfactory, he/she exonerates the author from all the allegations, apologises to the author and informs the reviewer about it. If the author’s guilt is proven, the editor informs the author’s institution, rejects the manuscript and informs the reviewer. If the author does not respond, the editor contacts the author’s institution, and even the supervising body, i.e. the office for fraud, and rejects the manuscript.
(b) Suspected data fabrication in a published article
A reader reports suspected data fabrication (seeking another reviewer’s opinion may be considered); the editor asks the author for an explanation; if these are satisfactory, he/she exonerates the author from all the allegations, apologises to the author and informs the reader about it. If the author’s guilt is proven, the editor informs the author’s institution, publishes a note about withdrawing the publication and informs the reader. If the author does not respond, the editor contacts the author’s institution, and even a supervising body, i.e. the office for fraud, publishes a note about withdrawing the publication and an expression of concern and informs the reader.
(a) The corresponding author asks for another author to be added before publishing
The editor clarifies the reason for the change and checks whether all the authors consent to adding another author. If the authors consent, the authors' list should be changed, and the article should be sent for review/print. If the authors do not consent, the review should be delayed until the authorship is clarified.
(b) The corresponding author asks for an author to be removed before publishing
The editor clarifies the reason for the change and checks whether all the authors consent to removing the author. If the authors consent, the authors' list should be changed, and the article should be sent for review/print. If the authors do not consent, the author being removed should be informed, and he/she should ask the co-authors or the institution for explanations. The review should be delayed until the authorship is clarified.
(c) A request to add another author after publishing
The editor clarifies the reason for the change. If the authors consent, he/she publishes the corrected version. If the authors do not consent, the decision is made by the authors’ institution to publish or not to publish the corrected version.
Sometimes an editor may suspect that the authors' list is incomplete or includes non-contributing authors (guest or gift authors). There are two types of such authors: a ghost author is someone who is left out of the authors list despite meeting the authorship criteria, and a guest author or a gift author is someone who is mentioned as an author despite failing to meet the authorship criteria.
Warning signs which may indicate authorship problems:
- the corresponding author seems to be unable to respond to reviewers’ comments
- changes are made by someone not included in the authors' list
- the document metadata show that the manuscript was prepared by someone not included in the authors list or not properly included in the acknowledgements
- an incredibly prolific author, e.g. of review articles, opinions
- many similar review articles/opinions have been published under different authors’ names
- no roles on the co-worker list (for example, it seems that none of the authors was responsible for the data analysis or for preparing the original version of the text)
- a suspiciously long or short authors’ list.
The reviewer indicates a conflict of interest in the manuscript, and the editor thanks the reviewer, asking the author for explanations. If these are satisfactory, he/she apologises to the author and continues the review process, informing the reviewer. If the author denies it, the editing board asks for an explanation in the form of a statement about all the author’s affiliations.
A reader indicates a conflict of interest in the article, the editor thanks the reader and asks the author for explanations. If these are satisfactory, he/she apologises to the author and, if needed, corrects the statements, informing the reader. If the author’s response is non-satisfactory or non-existent, the review process is suspended until explanations are provided by the author and the author’s employer. Eventually, the editing board submits the case to other institutions.
A reviewer indicates an ethical issue concerning the manuscript, and the editor thanks the reviewer, asking the author for explanations. If these are satisfactory, he/she apologises to the author and continues the review process. If the author’s response is non-satisfactory or non-existent, the editor suspends the review process and informs the author and the author’s employer. If there is no response, he/she passes on the matter to the superior authorities.
The author accuses a reviewer of misbehaviour in an anonymous review: he/she casts allegations against the actual article reviewer or accuses someone whose review was unsolicited. The editor collects evidence, performs a detailed analysis (or asks someone with proper qualifications for evaluation) and, if justified, asks the reviewer for explanations. If the explanations are satisfactory, the reviewer is exonerated. If the explanations are non-satisfactory or non-existent, the editor contacts the reviewer’s institution and, ultimately, removes the reviewer from the reviewers' list. He/she informs the author about it on an ongoing basis.
If a published article is evaluated critically in an e-mail message sent to the editor as an anonymous or non-anonymous objection regarding the scientific reliability or suspected plagiarism, manipulation of the figures or other dishonesty, all the information about the allegations should be passed on to the editor and the communication team, and the relevant procedure should be established. If there is specific and detailed evidence, the case should be examined in accordance with the COPE guidelines, the exposer should be informed, and the article should be removed from the database. If the evidence is not sufficient, the editor asks for details. If the objections are ambiguous, the investigation cannot be continued.
If a published article is evaluated critically in a message sent to the editor over social media as an anonymous or non-anonymous objection regarding the scientific reliability or suspected plagiarism, manipulation of the figures or other dishonesty, all the information about the allegations should be passed on to the editor and the communication team, and the relevant procedure should be established. The addressee should be responded to on social media, preferably within 24 hours, and informed that the matter will be investigated. If there is specific and detailed evidence, the case should be examined in accordance with the COPE guidelines. If the investigation has produced a result, such as a correction or withdrawal of the article, publishing the relevant information in the same social media service where the objection was reported in the first place should be considered, and a link to the investigation outcome on the periodical website should be published. If the evidence is not sufficient, the editor asks for details. If the objections are ambiguous, the investigation cannot be continued, and no additional comments should be responded to. For legal and ethical reasons, the periodical/publishing house account should be used for contact rather than the personal Twitter account.
Rules for authors
The principle of integrity should be respected at every stage of research, concerning the hypotheses put forward, the methods used, the analyses carried out, the transparent and accurate presentation and interpretation of results. Therefore, the editors would like to inform you that they will not allow publication if an author fails to meet these requirements, and will notify the unit indicated in the affiliation of the incident if the detected suspicions of scientific unreliability are confirmed. If the suspicions identified are confirmed, evidence of dishonest practices will be documented and archived by the editors.
In order to prevent cases of scientific dishonesty, such as ghostwriting, i.e. the failure to disclose the contribution of others to the creation of the publication, and guest authorship, i.e. attributing the contribution of others to the creation of the publication, although it was insignificant or did not take place at all, editors require disclosure of the contribution of individual authors to the creation of the publication (including their affiliation and contribution, i.e. information on who authored the concept of the publication). The author submitting an article to the thematic editor of a given volume and/or to the editorial board bears primary responsibility for their content.
The journal editors warn against passing off another person’s work or idea as your own, i.e. plagiarism.
It is also unacceptable to submit an article to more than one journal or publisher at the same time, or to submit to “Prace Literaturoznawcze an article that has already been published. Should this situation be discovered, the editors will not publish an article that has already been submitted, even if it has received positive reviews.
In order to prevent such unfair practices, all authors are required to complete and send to the editorial address (together with the paper submitted for publication) the statement available on the journal website:
https://czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/pl/about/submissions
The editors warn authors against another unethical practice, the so-called salami slicing-up, i.e. the spreading across several articles of research results that could form a single publication. It is also unacceptable to produce non-existent or false data and use it in a publication, known as research fraud.
Rules applicable to reviewers
The editors undertake to ensure proper reviewing principles, i.e. that there is no conflict of interest, through the reviewer's declaration. It occurs when mutual relations between the author and the reviewer, such as direct personal relations (kinship, legal ties, conflict), professional dependence relations, direct research cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review, are not disclosed.
In addition, scientific articles submitted to the journal editorial board are reviewed by two independent, external reviewers, appointed from the experts in the field of the publication. Reviewing is anonymous and follows a model in which the authors and the reviewer do not know each other's identities (the so-called double-blinded review process). The review process is confidential.
The reviewer should be objective about the article being assessed, be discreet and not criticise the author personally. The reviewer must keep information about the assessment process confidential. Additionally, the reviewer cannot use the contents of the paper for research prior to the publication of the paper.
Detailed information on the review policy can be found at https://czasopisma.uwm.edu.pl/index.php/pl/recenzja
The Editorial Board of Prace Literaturoznawcze pre-qualifies all manuscripts with respect to consistency with the theme and profile of the journal. Following that stage the paper is sent for the substantive assessment, which is carried out by two independent reviewers who are not linked professionally with the unit associated with the author. The Editorial Board undertakes every effort to fulfil the requirement of the double-blind review process and does not reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other.
In the case of papers written in foreign languages at least one of the reviewers is selected from a foreign institution different from the author’s nationality.
The reviewer is obliged to submit a declaration of no conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs in the case of the following relationships between an author and a reviewer:
direct personal relationships (affinity, legal connections, conflict);
relations concerning supervision at work;
direct academic cooperation during the two years preceding the issuing of the review;
Reviews are submitted in an electronic form. The reviewer either fills in the review form provided by the Editorial Board, or writes a descriptive review. The reviewer assesses the scientific level of a text, consistency with academic standards in literature studies, substantive and linguistic values of the manuscript. All remarks concerning corrections and suggestions are marked by the reviewer in an electronic form for the author’s consideration in the correction and final edition of the text. The review must contain an unambiguous conclusion either accepting or not accepting the paper for publication. The Editorial Board announces the list of cooperating reviewers (in the journal’s print version and on the website) once a year.
Having read the review, an author is obliged to fill in the form attached below which constitutes an answer to the reviewer’s remarks.
Additional information
The editors would like to point out that the journal is published under the terms of the Creative Commons non-exclusive licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) and distributed in an Open Access electronic version via the UWM Journals Platform (Platforma Czasopism UWM).
If the illustrations or other materials in the above-mentioned article are protected by copyright, the author undertakes to obtain and provide written permission for their use by the publisher and to bear the related costs and indicate the source of the materials in the work.
The author acknowledges that he/she will not be entitled to royalties or any other form of remuneration for the publication of the above work by Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego w Olsztynie The author also declares waiving any claims on this account against the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn.
10.31648/pl
Język Polski
English
Deutsch
364