CODE OF ETHICS

The editors of the “Stylistyka” yearbook consider research integrity and observance of publishing ethics to be the overriding principle of editorial policy. In order to prevent unethical behaviour of authors, the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education as well as the principles of publishing ethics recomended by Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) are applied, along with the procedures in case the above-mentioned regulations have been violated.

Detailed rules of publishing ethics COPE

Procedures of conduct - Flowcharts

THE PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

EDITORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Fair play

Editors evaluate submitted papers solely on their research merit (relevance, originality, validity of the research, clarity) and their relevance to the theme of the journal, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

Editorial independence

Editorial and publication decisions are not influenced by the policies of governments or any institutions other than the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial content of the journal and the timing of the content publication.

Confidentiality

Until publication, the editor and any member of the editorial team must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, as appropriate.

Malpractice investigations

The editors will take appropriate actions when ethical concerns arise in relation to the submitted manuscript or published work. Any reported case of unethical publishing conduct will be investigated, even if it is discovered many years after publication. The editors of “Stylistyka” will follow the COPE Flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct. If, after investigation, ethical concerns are found to be justified, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other appropriate comment will be published.

Conflict of interest disclosure

Editors strive to be objective and do not allow personal beliefs, or professional or institutional interests, to influence their opinions on whether or not a manuscript is suitable for publication. They are not allowed to use the information contained in submitted articles for personal research purposes without the authors’ prior express consent, either. In the event of a conflict of interest arising from a rivalry, collaboration or other relationship with any of the authors or institutions associated with an article, the Editor-in-Chief or another member of the journal’s Editorial Board shall assume the authority of the Editor-in-Chief in deciding whether to publish the article. Editors are obliged to disclose such conflicts of interest and to publish an appropriate post factum explanation if such a conflict is identified. Other actions, such as the publication of a correction, are also possible.

Appeal procedure

If an author decides to appeal the decision not to publish their manuscript, the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. After consultation with the Editor-in-Chief and the reviewers involved in reviewing the manuscript in question, the Editor-in-Chief may reverse the original decision to reject the manuscript for publication.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

The principle of research integrity

Authors submitting their articles to “Stylistyka” should clearly and fairly present their research material, the method of its analysis and interpretation, the description of the results obtained, as well as an objective assessment of their significance for the state of research on the problem undertaken. The article should contain sufficient data to enable others to reproduce the study. Review articles and research reviews should be fair and objective, while any other text, e.g. anniversary articles, occasional articles, etc., should be clearly marked as such. Dishonest or deliberately incomplete content is unethical and will not be accepted for publication in the journal.

Access to and preservation of data

Authors – in connection with the peer review process – may be asked for raw data (undeveloped research material).Thus, they should be prepared to provide public access to such data if possible, or at least they should retain the data for some time after publication of their work.

Originality and plagiarism

Only original manuscripts may be submitted for publication. All forms of plagiarism are unacceptable, including citing the work, words, data, theoretical concepts and conclusions of others, as well as paraphrasing significant parts of someone else’s work (without citing the author) or self-plagiarism, i.e. republishing parts of the author’s earlier work and presenting them as new ideas. Submitting work for publication in more than one journal at the same time is considered unethical and worthy of condemnation.

The work and words of other authors must be properly cited. Authors should also cite all sources of their inspiration, including published articles that contributed to the manuscript.

In exceptional situations, it is possible to reprint the same article in another journal or publication, and to publish it in different language versions (translations), but such a work must be properly marked and the permission of the copyright holder is required.

In order to prevent plagiarism, “Stylistyka” is a member of CrossCheck by iThenticate, a service that checks the originality of the content submitted before publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Any person who has made a significant intellectual contribution – i.e. from to the planning and conduct of the research, through the interpretation of the results, development of the theoretical/methodological concept presented in the article, to the writing of the text – is cited as an author of the article. This person is co-responsible for the research, the article and the final version for publication.

Persons who do not meet the above criteria, but who contributed in some way to the article (participated in the research, e.g. collected data), although not involved in the editing of the text, should be shown in the first footnote of the article. The same applies to institutions that, for example, funded the research and/or the making of the article.

Any changes in authorship made during the review process or after the article has been accepted for publication must be confirmed by all the authors listed, and the reason for any change must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.

In the case of a multi-authored text, the editorial office contacts one of the authors who submitted the text to the OJS system (or per e-mail) and acts as the corresponding author.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

All authors should disclose in the manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could affect the results or the interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the sources of all data provided. Information obtained privately (from conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties) must not be used or published without the explicit permission of the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as reviewing grant applications or manuscripts, without the explicit written permission of the author(s) involved.

Peer review

Authors are required to participate in and fully cooperate with the review process by promptly responding to the editors’ requests for raw data, explanations, evidence of permission to obtain data (where applicable), and/or copyright. If reviewers decide that revisions are necessary, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, in a timely manner, correcting and resubmitting the manuscript to the journal within the deadline.

Fundamental errors in published papers

If authors discover material errors or inaccuracies in their published work, it is their responsibility to notify the journal’s editors or publisher immediately and then work with them to correct the work in the form of errata or withdraw it from print. If the editors or publisher become aware from a third party that a published paper contains a material error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ responsibility to immediately correct or withdraw the paper or provide the journal editors with evidence of its correctness.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through communication with the author, may also help the author to improve the paper. Peer review is an essential part of the research inquiry and improving research methods. It is recognised that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications are obliged to participate fairly in peer review.

Reviewer’s acceptance of the task

Any person appointed as a reviewer who does not feel competent to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript or knows that it will not be possible to complete the review in the allotted time is asked to notify the editor in order to be excluded from the review process as soon as possible.

Promptness

If a reviewer believes that s/he is unable to complete the review of a manuscript within the allotted time, s/he should notify the editor in a timely manner and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Reviewers are required to keep all unpublished manuscripts and related materials confidential. Manuscripts may only be shared with others with the permission of the editors or the publishing house staff. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review.

Standard of objectivity

Reviews should be written in an objective manner. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer should clearly express his/her observations, giving supporting arguments, so that the authors can use them to improve the manuscript.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant publications that were not cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, argument or conclusion has been made in existing publications should be accompanied by the bibliographic address of that publication. Reviewer should also draw the attention of the editors to any significant similarities or overlaps between the text under review and other published data of which s/he is personally aware.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Data or research inspiration obtained through participation in reviewing must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate papers for which there is a conflict of interest arising from rivalry, collaboration or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions associated with the text.

PUBLISHER’S RESPONSIBILITIES

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, dishonest publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article. This shall include the prompt publication of errata, clarification or, in extreme cases, withdrawal of the article. The publisher, in conjunction with the editors, will take appropriate measures to identify and prevent the publication of papers in which research misconduct has occurred and will not under any circumstances encourage or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.

Access to the journal content

The publisher ensures the continued availability and preservation of the research and provides access to it by collaborating with organisations and maintaining a digital archive.

GENERAL PRICIPLES OF PUBLISHING ETHICS

1. It is considered inconsistent with publishing ethics to:
• refer literally (in whole or in part of the text) or non-literally (reproducing in the form of paraphrase relevant to the text as a whole, including the use of someone else's research concept) to other original publications without providing reference to them in the form of footnotes (plagiarism).
• duplicate in whole or in significant parts one’s own publication already published earlier (self-plagiarism).
• omit information about the co-author who significantly contributed to the publication (ghostwriting).
• attribute the publication to a co-author with little or no contribution to its creation (guest/gift authorship).
• fabricate data.
2. Any report of unethical conduct of the author(s) of the text shall be treated as suspicion.
3. Suspicion of unethical conduct by the author(s) of the text may be reported in relation to:
• the unpublished manuscript submitted to the editors/reviewers;
• published text.
4. Suspicion of unethical conduct of the author/authors of the text, as listed in 1., may be reported by:
• a member of the editorial team of “Stylistyka”;
• a reviewer;
• a reader;
• another person (e.g. omitted co-author).
5. The editors use firewalls to prevent ethically unacceptable situations – it is required to provide:
• the declaration of an individual statement by the author(s) of the text that the work is the original result of his/her research and has not been published before, and that he/she is the only person who participated in editing the text. The declaration also acknowledges his/her own authorship of the illustrative material used;
• the affiliation of the author(s) of the text;
• in the first footnote, information about the person(s) who participated in the research (e.g., collected data), although not involved in the editing of the text, and institutions that contributed to the text (e.g., by funding the research);
• if there is more than one author of the text, the percentage contribution of each author to the text.
6. In order to clarify whether an actual breach of ethical principles has occurred, the Editorial Board shall take action according to the procedure adopted by COPE.
• In the case of suspected plagiarism/autoplagiarism of a manuscript/published text, the Editor

- informs the person reporting the suspicion that investigative action has been taken;

- gathers full documentation with evidence;

- checks the extent of repetition and its validity by means of an anti-plagiarism software and by comparing and qualitatively analysing two texts; may involve reviewers, members of the editorial board, experts in a given field in the anti-plagiarism procedure, observing the principle of anonymity;

- if no significant and substantial repetitions are found, the Editor informs the person reporting the suspicion and the author of the outcome of the proceedings and their conclusion; if the suspicion concerns the manuscript, the Editor redirects the text for further stages of the editorial process;

- if a significant degree of repetition is detected, the Editor contacts the author by correspondence, attaching the submitted “Author’s Declaration” on the originality of the text and the documentation substantiating the suspicion of plagiarism/autoplagiarism, and asks for clarification;

- if the author provides a satisfactory explanation, the Editor informs the person reporting the suspicion of the outcome of the proceedings and the decision taken (rejection of the manuscript/withdrawal of the publication, approval of the correction);

- if the author provides an unsatisfactory explanation or admits guilt, the Editor rejects the manuscript/withdraws the publication, informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion and, possibly, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the decision taken and the position of the journal in such cases, and presents the course of action expected by the journal;

- if the author fails to reply, the Editor rejects the manuscript/withdraws the publication and informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the decision taken, the position of the journal in such cases, and presents the course of action expected by the journal; if no response is forthcoming from the institution, the Editor contacts the institution again within 3-6 months; if again no response is forthcoming, the Editor decides to contact other authorities in the country.

• In the case of suspected ghostwriting or guest/gift authorship in relation to a manuscript/published text, the Editor:

- informs the person reporting the suspicion that investigative action has been taken;

- gathers full documentation with evidence;

- contacts the author by mail with a request for clarification, attaching the submitted “Author's Declaration”;

- if the author provides a satisfactory explanation, the Editor presents the course of action expected by the journal (list of authors without change, removal of the author, addition of the author) and informs the person reporting the suspicion of the outcome of the investigation; in the case of changes in authorship of team articles, the Editor asks each author for permission to remove/add an author;

- if the author replies with an unsatisfactory explanation, the Editor contacts the person not designated as author/unduly listed as author with a request for information; informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion and, possibly, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the results of the investigation, the position of the journal in such cases and presents the course of action expected by the journal (removal of the author, addition of the author); in the case of changes in authorship of collaborative articles, the Editor asks each author for permission to remove/add an author; if the author refuses, the Editor rejects the manuscript/withdraws the publication.

- if the author fails to reply, the Editor rejects the manuscript/withdraws the publication and informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the decision taken, the position of the journal in such cases and the course of action expected by the journal; if no response is forthcoming from the institution, the Editor contacts the institution again within 3-6 months; if again no response is forthcoming, the Editor decides to contact other authorities in the country.

• In the case of suspected fabrication of data, the Editor:

- informs the person reporting the suspicion that investigative action has been taken and asks to provide evidence;

- collects all documentation;

- analyses the data; may ask an external expert or a member of the Scientific Council of the journal for an opinion on the matter;

- contacts the author by mail to asking for clarification;

- if the author gives a satisfactory explanation, the Editor presents the course of action expected by the journal and informs the person reporting the suspicion of the outcome of the procedure and the decision taken (rejection of the manuscript/withdrawal of the publication, acceptance of the correction);

- if the author replies with an unsatisfactory explanation, the Editor informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion and, possibly, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the results of the investigation, the position of the journal in such cases and presents the expected course of action (removal of the author, addition of the author);

- if the author fails to respond, the Editor rejects the manuscript/withdraws the publication and informs the author, the person reporting the suspicion, the author’s superior and those responsible for research management at the author’s institution of the decision taken (rejection of the manuscript/withdrawal of the publication); if no response is forthcoming from the institution, the Editor contacts the institution again within 3-6 months; if again no response is forthcoming, the Editor decides to contact other authorities in the country.

If anyone notices a breach of the above rules or other misconduct related to publishing ethics or research integrity, please contact the editor: styl@uni.opole.pl, or the publisher: ij@uni.opole.pl.