Publishing ethics

Probity is one of foundations of quality in science. What testifies to proper ethical conduct of an academic and to the highest level of ethical standards in editorial procedures is the transparency of information about all persons and entities contributing to a publication (intellectual, material, financial input, etc.).

Consequently, the Editorial Board of Folia Litteraria Rossica require their authors to present the results of their work in a transparent, reliable and honest way, thereby preventing any cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship (honorary authorship). The term ghostwriting describes a situation in which a person has significantly contributed to a publication without being listed as co-author or without his/her name being mentioned in the acknowledgement. Guest authorship, in turn, means that a person’s contribution to a publication is negligible or none at all, yet such a person is listed as co-author or author.

The situations described above constitute departures from expected scholarly integrity and all cases of such misconduct will be documented and publicised by the Editorial Board, which includes notifying the relevant institutions (the authors’ employers, academic societies, associations of scholarly editors).

Together with manuscripts, the authors submit an appropriate statement concerning authorship (PL, EN).

The editorial staff of Folia Litteraria Rossica act in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. All parties involved in the publication process (the editor, the author, the reviewer, the publisher) should be familiar with ethical standards observed in the journal.


Editorial responsibilities:

1)     The editor has the authority to decide which of the submitted papers should be accepted for publication (taking into account: the academic importance of the contribution, the originality of the input, the clarity of the text, its conformity with the profile of the journal). When making decisions, the editor should be guided by the journal’s policy, as well as by legal regulations on matters such as libel, infringement of copyright and plagiarism. In these matters, the editor may confer with other editorial staff and/or reviewers.

2)   The editor assesses the submitted manuscripts on basis of their scholarly merit, without regard to race, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor does not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and – in special circumstances – other editorial staff.

3)   The editor and the editorial staff  should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and authorised consultants (e.g. translators and proofreaders) or the publisher.

4)    The editor endeavours to guarantee an unbiased and substantive review. Before initiating the reviewing process, the editor should reveal and prevent any possible conflict of interest stemming from collaboration or other relations with regard to all co-authors. The editorial board will require all collaborators to disclose any competitive interests and will make every effort to prevent it. If necessary, steps to be taken include retracting a manuscript or, in the event of a COI being revealed after publication, publishing a corrective statement.

5) The editor can retract an article when:

– there is clear evidence that the results of research are unreliable or that data has been fabricated, or else in the case of involuntary errors (methodological ones);

– research results have already been published elsewhere;

– the manuscript contains plagiarism or otherwise breaches ethical principles.

A notification of manuscript retraction should be understood as a de facto removal of the text. Such a notification should inform who has made the decision and for what reasons is the text being retracted.

6) The editors reserve the right to edit the texts for length, stylistic details, conformance with style guides etc.


Authorship regulations

An author of the article is considered to be an individual

– who significantly contributed either to creating the conception or design of the study or to analysing and interpreting the data;

– who drafted the work or reviewed/revised it critically for important intellectual content;

– who had a decisive influence on the final shape of the text in the version in which it is to be published.

If any unethical conduct on the part of the author of the publication is revealed – such as plagiarism, data falsification or re-publication of a previously published work or part of it (the so-called self-plagiarism) – the editors ask such an author for explanations and then may take appropriate steps in line with the COPE guidelines. At a later stage of the proceedings, this may mean notifying the authorities of the author’s academic unit, rejecting a given article, and refusal to publish any future texts by that person in the journal.

  • If more than one person has been involved in writing the text and/or in the research underlying it, the contributions of all persons should be specified in the statement submitted together with the manuscript.
  • In line with COPE guidelines, any change to authorship information requires written consent from all co-authors. This should be expressed by each author in a separate (electronic) letter of consent addressed to the editor-in-chief. The consent of all co-authors to changing authorship information of a submitted or already printed paper must take written form. If authors cannot reach agreement on this, they should consult the authorities of their home institution(s). The editorial board of Folia Litteraria Rossica will not undertake mediation in such controversies.

Regulations concerning reviewers:

1)     Reviewers take part in the activities of the editorial board and influence the decisions made by the editor-in-chief. Their comments on the subject matter can also help the authors improve their manuscripts.

2)      In the reviews the quality of the reported research should be judged objectively. Reviewers should explain their judgment clearly and support it.

3)      Reviewers are obliged to submit their opinion statements timely. If for any reason (from scholarly ones to time pressure) they cannot meet the deadline or cannot undertake the reviewing at all, they should notify the editorial board immediately.

4)    All materials sent for review should be treated as confidential. Disclosing their contents to third parties (with the exception of persons authorised) is inadmissible.

5) The principle of preventing conflicts of interest:

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the research unit which he or she represents), a reviewer or an editor is engaged in personal or economic relations which may inappropriately influence his/her actions. Each author or reviewer noticing an existing conflict of interest is obliged to report it to the editors.