PEER-REVIEWING PROCESS

The purpose of reviewing is to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works by establishing quality standards for author's manuscripts, their compliance with the journal’s profile, object and subject of philological sciences in order to maintain a high scientific, theoretical and practical level of the journal and promoting improved communication in the scientific community.

The submitted articles are reviewed according to the following criteria:
1. Compliance with the direction of the journal.
2. Compliance of the article structure with the established requirements.
3. The level of substantiation of relevance and scientific novelty.
4. The degree of disclosure of the stated topic.
5. The presence of original scientific results.
6. Correspondence of the style and language of the article to the level permissible
for printing.
7. Indication of proper references to primary sources.
8. Displaying the content of the article in abstracts of the required volume and keywords.

Reviewing process

The submitted papers must correspond to the scientific field covered by the journal. The manuscript must be formatted according to the requirements and guidelines that are available on the journal’s website (http://sites.znu.edu.ua/nova_filologia/95.eng.html). The editorial office accepts the students’ articles in co-authorship with the supervisor only.

The authors without a PhD degree must submit materials only in co-authorship with their academic supervisors.

The process of reviewing of the papers embraces several steps.

1. The submitted materials are registered by the editors with indication of the information on the date of submission, the title of the paper, name of the author, their affiliation, and contacts for interaction.
2. The submitted papers undergo the procedure of obligatory double blind specialist reviewing on originality, ethics and relevance. The Editorial Board enlists the linguists from both Ukrainian and foreign higher education establishments as the experts in the the blind reviewing procedure. The Editorial Council sends the manuscript of the paper to reviewers. Reviewing is aimed at forming and maintaining the highest ethical standards of research.

Editors accept or reject a paper for publication depending on the paper’s importance, originality, novelty, clarity, and relevance to the aims of the journal. The Editorial Board provides that the blind review is fair, unbiased, confidential and timely.

The papers are reviewed within the period of 30 to 40 days, after which the authors are sent an e-mail informing about its admission, rejection or the necessity of elaboration or making changes.

3. If the material is recommended by the reviewers for further elaboration, the author is necessarily sent the text of the review without specifying the names of the reviewers, but with specific remarks and indication of the terms of changing the paper. The elaborated article undergoes a second review in the shortest possible time. Articles are re-reviewed no more than twice
4. Together with the message of admission the authors receive the bank details to pay the publication fees, after which they must send to the Editorial office a confirmation of payment (scan or copy of a payment slip).
5. The articles that were earlier published in other scientific periodicals or made public in other forms are not be accepted. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the materials that don't correspond to the standards and aims of the journal, are not formatted according to the requirements, as well as the ones that contain unautorised citations and elements of plagiarism. In case the article is declined, the Editorial Council sends the author a motivated refusal. Such papers are not subject to another reviewing.
6. The Editorial Board draws the authors' special attention to the necessity of adherence to the principles of academic ethics.

The authors bear responsibility for the original nature of the submitted papers, precision and verification of the material, calculations, correctness of quotations and references.

7. The Editorial Board selects papers for publication based on the quality of submitted articles, approves the final form and content of the “New Philology” journal, which is approved by the decision of the Academic Council of ZNU.

Most common grounds for refusal to publish an article

When determining the policy for reviewing manuscripts of articles, the editorial board of the journal uses the world's academic experience of reviewing. Below are the main reasons for refusal to publish the article: inconsistency of the content of the article with the direction of the journal; lack of originality, novelty and relevance; lack of scientifically based results; non-compliance of the article with the journal’s requirements; poor organization of the article and style of presentation; improper preparation of the article.

 

ARTICLE RETRACTION

The journal “New Philology” adheres to the COPE recommendations for retraction of publications.

The purpose of retraction is to support the reliability and quality of a scientific work, and to eliminate false or problematic information. Retraction of the text of a scientific article is a tool for correcting scientific information and a way to warn readers about the presence of significant errors or unreliable data in the article. Such data can be the result of both the author's unfounded confidence and a deliberate violation of scientific integrity.

Retraction can be carried out in cases of repeated submission of the same results in different publications, detection of plagiarism and falsified data, concealment of a conflict of interest, which may affect the interpretation of the results.

The editorial board may retract an article in the following cases:

• Receipt of a substantiated appeal from the author regarding the retraction of his work.
• Decision of the editor-in-chief based on the identified violations.
• Violation by the author of the principles of publication ethics of the journal.

A publication is subject to withdrawal if:

• there is confirmed evidence of the unreliability of the results due to serious miscalculations, experimental errors, falsification or fabrication of data;
• plagiarism is detected;
• the results have been previously published in another source without proper reference or permission;
• materials or data have been used without appropriate permission;
• copyright or other legal violations have been violated;
• unethical behavior has been detected;
• the review process has been compromised or manipulated;
• no serious conflict of interest has been disclosed that could have influenced the conclusions.

The decision to withdraw the article is made by the editorial board based on the submission of the editor-in-chief.

If the author(s) independently decide to withdraw the article, they must submit a reasoned written appeal to the editorial board. In case of confirmation of the grounds for withdrawal, the editorial board makes the appropriate decision.

If the retraction is initiated by the editorial board, it notifies the authors and asks for their position. If the author does not respond, the editorial board has the right to make a decision on retraction collegially without taking into account the author's opinion.

The decision is recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting, which indicate the grounds, the date of retraction, and a link to the source of plagiarism (if any). All metadata remains on the journal’s website, the text of the article is saved with the mark “RETRACTED” and the corresponding date both in the table of contents and in the article itself.

The editor-in-chief sends the relevant information to the Ethics Council for Scientific Publications and Databases, indicating:

• the author's name and the title of the article;
• the source from which the borrowing was made;
• the initiator of the retraction;
• the reason and date of the retraction;
• a link to the relevant page of the site;
• DOI (if available) and metadata of the article.

A copy of the minutes of the editorial board is also sent to the author (or corresponding author). The information about the withdrawal is posted on the journal website. The editorial board may make an additional decision to temporarily (for the period of 1 year) refuse to accept new articles from the author whose work has been withdrawn.

If the author wants to withdraw an already published or submitted, approved for publication but not yet published article, they must indicate in a written application:

• name and surname (of all co-authors);
• title of the article;
• year, number and issue of the journal;
• pages (if the article has been published);
• justified reason;
• contact email address;
• phone number.

The author(s) should be aware that after withdrawal, the published article will be deleted only from the journal database. However, due to the open access policy, it may remain available in other repositories (for example, ResearchGate, Scribd, Turnitin, iThenticate, etc.). The journal is not responsible for the preservation of these copies in external sources.

 

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE VIOLATIONS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

When reviewing complaints, the editorial board of the journal adheres to the relevant rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Procedure for handling complaints

In the event of filing complaints against editorial decisions, the following review procedure is applied:

• Any complaint is first reviewed by the editor-in-chief responsible for the journal and/or the responsible editor who directly participated in the editorial process.
• The editor-in-chief of the publication may involve in the review two members of the editorial board who have relevant experience in participating in the editorial boards of other publications and whose experience and knowledge can help in resolving the dispute and properly clarifying the circumstances described in the appeal, as well as in the proper application of the editorial policy and rules of publication ethics of the journal.

The editorial board reviews complaints regarding:

• plagiarism;
• falsification or fabrication of data;
• double or multiple publication;
• incorrect authorship (exclusion or addition of authors without consent);
• violation of the review procedure;
• the presence of a conflict of interest that has not been declared;
• unethical behavior on the part of authors, reviewers or editors.

The complaint must be submitted in writing to the official email address of the editorial office. The appeal must contain: a clear description of the essence of the complaint; names or details of the persons to whom it applies; specific evidence or references to sources; contact details of the applicant (anonymous appeals may be considered if a sufficient evidence base is provided).

On receiving the complaint:

• the editor-in-chief or an authorized member of the editorial board carries out a preliminary check within 10 working days;
• if necessary, requests for additional information may be sent to the applicant;
• if the complaint is considered justified, an internal investigation is initiated.

When considering complaints, the editorial board adheres to the following rules:

• mutual respect for all participants in the editorial process, the presumption of their proper and conscientious behavior until proven otherwise;
• providing all interested parties with the right to present their arguments in support of or against the stated claims;
• due notification of the participants in the editorial process about the receipt and consideration of such an appeal that will affect their rights and/or interests;
• directing the process of resolving any dispute through the search for compromise and mutual understanding.

Depending on the results of the investigation, the following measures may be taken:

• making corrections to the article;
• publishing a statement of violation or withdrawal of the article (retraction);
• notifying the institution with which the author is affiliated;
• prohibiting submission of articles to the journal for a certain period of time;
• other actions in accordance with COPE standards.

Persons affected by the complaint have the right to file a reasoned objection or appeal against the editorial decision. Reconsideration is carried out with the participation of external experts, not connected with the initial process. All complaints and their decisions are documented and kept in the editorial archive. These records can be used to improve editorial policy and prevent similar situations in the future.