- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Indexing
- Reviewers
- Ethnolinguistics. Issues in Language and Culture Ethical principles
Focus and Scope
1. All submissions to the journal are peer-reviewed.
2. Prior to review, each submission is checked with an anti-plagiarism software.
***
3. The peer-review process consists of two stages: (1) internal reviews and (2) external reviews.
3.1. At the internal review stage, all submissions, i.e. research articles, review articles (reviews), reports on scholarly events, reports on special occasions, are evaluated by members of the journal’s Editorial Board or Advisory Board. Internal reviewers are chosen depending on the subject matter and the language of the submission (in the case of submissions in foreign languages, the reviewer is a native speaker or a specialist in the relevant language area).
3.2. Research articles positively assessed at the internal review stage are sent for external review. Two external reviews are solicited from specialists not affiliated with the same institution as the author of the submission. In the case of submissions in foreign languages, at least one of the reviewers must be affiliated with an overseas academic institution and/or is a native speaker of a given language and/or a specialist in that language.
4. The peer-review process is double-blind (the authors and reviewers do not know each other's identity).
5. Reviewers are chosen by the Editor-in-Chief in collaboration with his/her deputy and/or members of the Editorial Board. If necessary, members of the Advisory Board are asked for opinion.
6. Upon accepting the request for a review, a reviewer shall make a declaration of no conflict of interest (see Guidelines for reviewers, point 3).
7. Reviews are prepared in writing and must contain an unambiguous recommendation as to the acceptance/rejection of the submission.
8. The reviewer can choose between the following options: (i) accept the submission for publication; (ii) request revision of the article; (iii) solicit an additional review necessary; (iv) do not accept (reject) the submission.
9. Submissions that have received two positive reviews are accepted for publication. In the case of two negative reviews, the submission is rejected. In the event of disagreement between reviewers, a super-reviewer is appointed, whose opinion is crucial in making the final decision.
***
10. The author of the submission is obliged to respond to all comments and suggestions made in the reviews.
11. In the case of a review with a recommendation “revise the submission”, the editors may accept it for publication if the author introduces the changes suggested by the reviewers.
***
12. The names of reviewers of specific research articles are not disclosed; however, the journal publishes a list of all reviewers collaborating with the journal once a year.
Guidelines for reviewers
Request for review
1. Accepting the request for review
Before accepting the request to review a submission, the reviewer should consider whether the content of the submission is consistent with their competence or research interests. The reviewer should decline the request if they presume that they do not have sufficient expertise to make a reliable recommendation on the submission.
2. Timeliness
A reviewer should decline the request to review if they are not able to meet the deadline of six weeks. If the complexity of the issue discussed in the submission requires more time, the reviewer should inform the editor and negotiate extending the deadline. If the reviewer finds that they cannot complete the review in a timely manner, they should notify the editor immediately so that other potential reviewers can be contacted.
3. Conflict of interest
A reviewer should not undertake the review if there is a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship of a personal, financial, or professional nature between that reviewer and any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript.
Criteria for the assessment of peer-reviewed manuscripts
The reviewer should assess the submission taking into account: 1) the compatibility of the submission with the journal profile; 2) the merit of the submission, including the appropriateness of the research methods and their novelty, the relevance of the sources and references; 3) the compatibility of the abstract, keywords with the content of the article; 4) the coherence and clarity of the argumentation; the appropriateness and clarity of the style.
1. Compatibility of submission with the journal profile
1. The reviewer should assess whether the manuscript is compatible with the journal profile, i.e. whether its content falls within the study of language in its relation to culture (ethnolinguistics understood as anthropological and cultural linguistics with a cognitive orientation).
2. Merit of the submission
1. The reviewer considers whether the submission is an original work that offers a valuable contribution to scholarship.
2. The reviewer considers whether the submission is sufficiently novel and potentially interesting to scholars in Poland or internationally.
3. In particular, the reviewer considers whether the submission contains results or offers conclusions that will prove useful to scholars working in this field, as well as whether those results and/or conclusions are innovative in relation to other studies in that area.
4. The review should indicate in particular whether: (1) the title of the submission is compatible with its content; (2) the article is original/innovative and to what extent (in its choice of the research problem or presentation thereof, its interpretation, the overall approach, the methodology used, or for other reasons); (3) adequate methodology is used; (4) sufficient use has been made of the relevant sources and literature.
3. Abstract and keywords
1. The reviewer assesses whether the abstract of the article indicates the research question, the main hypotheses, the purpose of the research, its scope, the originality of the results, the value of the submission for scholarship or for practical application.
2. The reviewer assesses the appropriateness the keywords proposed.
4. The style and editorial aspects of the submission
1. The reviewer assesses the style used by the author, as well as the coherence and clarity of the argumentation.
Code of Ethics
Suspicion of redundant (duplicate) publication
1. If a reviewer suspects that a submission constitutes a redundant (duplicate) publication, they should inform the editor.
2. A redundant (duplicate) publication is one in which the author duplicates their own previously published work in the form of literal or partial repetition of their own publications or one already published in a different language.
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence on which the suspicion of redundant (duplicate) publication is based.
4. If a reviewer reports suspicion of redundant (duplicate) publication, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Suspicion of plagiarism
1. The reviewer should inform the editor of suspected plagiarism.
2. Plagiarism is considered to be both the taking over of another person’s work in total or in substantial part in an unchanged form or with minor modifications (overt plagiarism) or the presentation of another person’s work in a modified form but retaining its creative and individual features that originate with the actual author (covert plagiarism).
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence on which plagiarism is suspected.
4. If a reviewer reports suspicion of plagiarism, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Suspicion of data fabrication
1. If a reviewer suspects that data used in a submission have been fabricated, they should inform the editor.
2. Data fabrication occurs when the author of the manuscript presents the results of research that did not take place or arbitrarily or unjustifiably alters the results of the research conducted.
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor relevant evidence that provides grounds for suspecting that the data used in the submitted manuscript have been fabricated.
4. If a reviewer reports suspicion of data fabrication, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Suspicion of ghost, guest, or gift authorship
1. If a reviewer suspects that a manuscript has been authored by someone not listed as an author or someone included in the acknowledgements, or contains undeserving (guest or gift) authors, the reviewer should inform the editor.
2. In the assessment of ghost, guest, or gift authorship, the principles defined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) apply accordingly:
(1) A ghost author is a person who has been omitted from the list of authors even though they were eligible for authorship.
(2) A guest or gift author is a person who is listed as an author even though they do not meet the criteria for authorship. Guest authors are individuals included to make the list look more impressive (even though they had little or no involvement in the research or preparation of the submission). Guest authorship involves the practice of crediting others in exchange for being credited for their own publication.
2. The reviewer should make available to the editor relevant evidence for suspicion of ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
3. If a reviewer reports suspicion of ghost, guest, or gift authorship, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
1. If a reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submission, they should inform the editor.
2. Conflict of interest may arise from competition, collaboration, or other relationship (on the part of the reviewer) of personal, financial, or professional nature with any of the authors or institutions associated with the submission.
3. If a reviewer reports suspected undisclosed conflict of interest in a submission, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Confidentiality
1. Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed or discussed with other individuals unless the reviewer has received appropriate permission from the editor.
2. Unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript may not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the express written permission of the author.
3. If there is suspicion of a reviewer having misappropriating the author’s ideas or data, the editor shall proceed in accordance with the relevant rules set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), as specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
Objectivity of reviews
1. Reviews should be written in an objective manner.
2. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable.
Section Policies
Biograms
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
 Peer Reviewed |
Articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Reviews
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Reports
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Book notices
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Books received
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Introductory articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Submissions to the journal undergo a two-stage review process. First, submissions are evaluated by the members of the Team of Editors or the Editorial Board: the choice of the internal reviewers depends on the theme of the publication and the language of the submission (native speakers or specialists in a given language are selected). The identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors. Second, submissions accepted in the first stage undergo a double-blind peer-review process by two external reviewers, experts in the respective fields not affiliated with the same institution as the submission’s author. External reviews are produced in writing and end with a recommendation as to the acceptance/rejection of the submission: (i) publish as is; (ii) publish after editorial corrections (minor revision); (iii) publish after revision of content; (iv) reject/resubmit after a major revision (not acceptable for publication in current form).
Publication Frequency
The journal Etnolingwistyka. Problemy języka i kultury is published once a year (in the electronic version). Submissions are accepted and evaluated on a continuous basis. The internal review process (preliminary assessment) takes on average 14 days. Submissions qualified for further processing are sent to external reviewers – the external review process takes, on average, 60 days. Depending on the recommendations of the reviewers, the manuscripts are: (1) rejected (with two negative reviews), (2) returned to authors for revision (following the reviewers’ recommendations), (3) sent to a third, additional reviewer (in the case of contradictory reviews), or (4) qualified for publication (with two positive reviews). Articles accepted for publication and edited in accordance with the journal requirements are published in the next issue of the journal (the average waiting time for publication is 200 days). The final decision, however, also depends on the theme of specific issues.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Indexing
The journal is indexed in Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL), The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CEJSH), Index Copernicus, iSybislaw, POL-index, ERIH PLUS, BazHum
Reviewers
Reviewers in 1988-2022
Abramowicz Maciej (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Adamowski Jan (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Ajdačić Dejan (National University of Kyiv, Ukraine [until 2021], University of Gdańsk, Poland)
Antas Jolanta (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Antropov Nikolaj (Narodowa Akademia Nauk Białorusi)
Bagłajewski Arkadiusz (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Bańczerowski Jerzy (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Benenowska Iwona (Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland)
Berezovič Elena L. (Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, Russia)
Bernárdez Enrique (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)
Białek Ewa (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Bjeletić Marta (Serbian Academy of Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia)
Brożyna Małgorzata (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Brzozowska Dorota (University of Opole, Poland)
Bułat Silva Zuzanna (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Chlebda Wojciech (University of Opole, Poland)
Chruszczewski Piotr (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Czachur Waldemar (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Czerwiński Maciej (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Danaher David (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA)
Dąbrowska Anna (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Duda Henryk (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland)
Dunin-Dudkowska Anna (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Dyszak Andrzej (Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland)
Dźwigoł Renata (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Falińska Barbara (University in Białystok, Poland)
Filar Dorota (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Frolak Lubov (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Gatkowska Izabela (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Gawarkiewicz Roman (University of Szczecin, Poland)
Geller Ewa (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Gicala Agnieszka (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Goddard Cliff (Griffith University, Nathan, Australia)
Grzeszczak Monika (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland)
Gudavičius Aloyzas (Šiauliai University, Lithuania)
Jakubowicz Mariola (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Jaros Irena (University of Łódź, Poland)
Jelonek Tomasz (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Judin Aleksej (Ghent University, Belgia)
Kajfosz Jan (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Kapetanović Amir (Institute of the Croatian Language and Linguistics, Zagreb, Croatia)
Kardela Henryk (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Karwatowska Małgorzata (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Kłosińska Katarzyna (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Kołodziejek Ewa (University of Szczecin, Poland)
Koutny Ilona (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Kowalewska-Dąbrowska Jolanta (University of Gdańsk, Poland)
Kowalikowa Jadwiga (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Kozhinova Alla (Belarusian State University, Mińsk, Belarus [until 2021], University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Koziara Stanisław (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Krzyżanowska Anna (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Książek-Bryła Władysława (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Kucała Marian (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Kul’pina Valentina (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia)
Kurek Halina (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Levisen Carsten (Roskilde University, Denmark)
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk Barbara (University of Lodz, Poland)
Lewicki Andrzej Maria (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Libura Agnieszka (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Ligara Bronisława (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Lubocha-Kruglik Jolanta (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Łozowski Przemysław (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Maćkiewicz Jolanta (University of Gdańsk, Poland)
Marczewska Marzena (Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland)
Martinek Svitlana (Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine)
Masłowska Ewa (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Mihajlova Katia (Bulgaian Academy of Sciences, Sophia, Bulgaria)
Mikołajczuk Agnieszka (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Nagórko Alicja (Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany)
Niewiara Aleksandra (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Nowakowska-Kempna Iwona (Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa, Poland)
Ożóg Kazimierz (University of Rzeszów, Poland)
Pajdzińska Anna (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Pawlak Nina (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Pazio-Wlazłowska Dorota (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Pelcowa Halina (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Piechnik Anna (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Pieciul-Karmińska Eliza (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Popowska-Taborska Hanna (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Potapenko Serhiy (Nizhyn Gogol State University, Ukraine)
Rak Maciej (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Rejter Artur (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Rodziewicz Barbara (University of Szczecin, Poland)
Rudenka Alena (Belarusian State University, Minsk, Belarus [until 2020], Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Sedakova Irina (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia)
Sikora Kazimierz (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Skibińska Elżbieta (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Smyk Katarzyna (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Sobotka Piotr (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Sokólska Urszula (University in Białystok, Poland)
Sotirov Petar (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Starko Vasyl (Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University, Lutsk, Ukraine)
Steciąg Magdalena (University of Zielona Góra, Poland)
Stria Ida (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Szostek Andrzej (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Święcicka Małgorzata (Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland)
Tabakowska Elżbieta (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Tolstaja Svetlana M. (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia)
Tomaszkiewicz Teresa (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Tyrpa Anna (Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland)
Underhill James W. (University of Rouen Normandy, France)
Valentsova Marina (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia)
Vaňková Irena (Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic)
Warchala Jacek (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Waszakowa Krystyna (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Wiatrowski Przemysław (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Wierzbicka Anna (Australian National University, Canberra)
Witaszek-Samborska Małgorzata (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Wojtyła-Świerzowska Maria (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Wójcicka Marta (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Wysoczański Włodzimierz (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Zaron Zofia (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Zielińska Anna (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Zinken Jörg (Institute of the German Language, Mannheim, Germany)
Zowczak Hanna (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Żarski Waldemar (University of Wrocław, Poland)
Żmudzki Jerzy (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Żyśko Konrad (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Żywicka Beata (State Higher East-European School in Przemyśl, Poland)
Reviewers in 2023
Augustyniak-Żmuda Gabriela (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Bjeletić Marta (Serbian Academy of Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia)
Carisio Anastasiia (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)
Cegieła Anna (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Cieplińska Katarzyna (University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland)
Czachur Waldemar (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Czerwiński Maciej (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Długosz Natalia (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland)
Dołowy-Rybińska Nicole (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Gajec Marcin (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Genew-Puhalewa Iliana (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Gicala Agnieszka (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Grząśko Agnieszka (University of Rzeszów, Poland)
Jakubowicz Mariola (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Kabakova Galina (Sorbonne University, Paris France)
Kapetanović Amir (Institute of the Croatian Language and Linguistics, Zagreb, Croatia)
Kardela Henryk (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Kleszczowa Krystyna (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Komorowska Hanna (SWPS University, Warsaw, Poland)
Koziara Stanisław (Pedagogical University in Kraków, Poland)
Kozłowska Anna (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland)
Kurek Halina (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland)
Łozowski Przemysław (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Marczewska Marzena (Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland)
Masłowska Ewa (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Moch Zofia (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Niewiara Aleksandra (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Nowakowska-Kempna Iwona (Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa, Poland)
Osłon Michaił (Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland)
Pazio-Wlazłowska Dorota (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Pietrow Jarosław (University of Warsaw, Poland)
Popławski Emil (Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland)
Rejter Artur (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland)
Rutkovska Kristina (Vilnius University, Lithuania)
Shmiher Taras (Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine)
Smetonienė Irena (Vilnius University, Lithuania)
Stalmaszczyk Piotr (University of Łódź, Poland)
Szulc-Brzozowska Magdalena (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland)
Tyrpa Anna (Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland)
Zemszał Piotr (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland)
Zhujkova Margarita (Volyn National University of Ukraine named after Lesia Ukrainki, Lutsk, Ukraine)
Zielińska Anna (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
Żywicka Beata (University of Siedlce, Poland)
Ethnolinguistics. Issues in Language and Culture Ethical principles
General Ethical Standards
1. The Editorial Board of the journal Ethnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury follows the Code of Good Practice in Science, the ethical principles formulated by the Committee of the Ethics of Communication at the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences (formerly Committee of Ethics at the Council of Polish, Polish Academy of Sciences), as well as the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, www.publicationethics.org).
2. The Editorial Board of the journal has implemented the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) specified, in particular, in Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
3. The journal Editorial Board cooperates with the authors and reviewers to promote and raise awareness of the importance of publication ethics as specified by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
4. All manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are assessed for compliance with the principles of publication ethics.
5. The Board of Editors recommend that the authors and reviewers familiarise themselves not only with the ethical principles outlined in this set of guidelines, but also with the content that can be found on the website of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org).
6. All parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher) are required to adhere to the ethical principles at every stage of the publishing process.
Rules applicable to Editors
Monitoring the compliance with ethical principles
The Editorial Board of the journal Ethnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury monitors the observance of ethical principles guiding the publication process and counteracts the practices that do not comply with accepted ethical standards.
Responsibilities
1. The Editorial Board of the journal decide which manuscripts (articles, reviews, conference reports, etc.) submitted to the journal should be accepted for publication and is responsible for all content published.
2. Publishing decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with his/her deputy, editors of theme issues, members of the Editorial Board, Advisory Board, or the reviewers.
3. The Editor-in-Chief, in implementing the journal’s policy, shall comply with the legal requirements applicable to defamation, copyright infringement, and cases of plagiarism.
4. The Editor-in-Chief makes every effort to ensure that the content published in the journal complies with the integrity of research and that intellectual and ethical standards are placed above commercial interest. The Editor-in-Chief shall be open to publishing corrections, clarifications, apologies, or to proceed with article retractions when necessary.
Decisions concerning publication
1. The decision to publish or reject a submitted manuscript rests with the journal’s Editorial Board.
2. In making the decision, the Editorial Board takes into account the recommendations of the reviewers, the merit, originality, and clarity of the submitted manuscript, as well as its compatibility with the scope and aim of the journal.
Anti-plagiarism system
1. In order to counteract plagiarism or redundant (duplicate) publications, the journal uses the iThenticate anti-plagiarism software Crossref Similarity Check (https://www.ithenticate.com) to check all submissions to the journal.
2. The definition of plagiarism and redundant (duplicate) publication adopted by the journal is provided in this set of guidelines under Principles concerning authors / Originality and plagiarism / Redundant, multiple (duplicate), or simultaneous publication.
3. In the case of suspected plagiarism or redundant (duplicate) publication, the editors shall proceed in accordance with the principles described on journal website under Codes of Ethics, based on the guidelines developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
The review process
1. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief makes every effort to ensure that the review process is fair, impartial, and timely.
2. Research articles are reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and the Editor shall seek additional opinions if necessary.
3. The Editor-in-Chief requests reviews from specialists with appropriate expertise in the field and follows best practice in preventing the appointment of dishonest reviewers. The Editor shall check any potential conflicts of interest disclosed by reviewers and suggestions of self-citation to determine whether there is a potential for bias.
Integrity
Manuscripts submitted for publication are assessed solely for their scientific merit. The evaluation is not affected by the gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity, citizenship, or political beliefs of the author(s).
Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief shall not disclose any information concerning the submission to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, and potential reviewers, and in some cases members of the Editorial Board.
Openness and conflicts of interest
1. Unpublished material contained in a submission may not be used in the Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
2. The Editor-in-Chief shall ensure that the publisher's commercial revenues do not influence editorial decisions.
3. The Editor-in-Chief makes every effort to ensure that the review process is proper and fair. In situations of conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationship (on the part of a reviewer) with any of the authors or institutions associated with the manuscripts, the editor assigned with the task of internal review should withdraw from the procedure, and a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the Editorial Board should be assigned to proceed. The Editor-in-Chief is required to request that all co-authors disclose conflicting interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief should take other appropriate action, such as publication of notices regarding retractions or potential unreliability of published content.
Involvement and cooperation of parties
1. The editors shall ensure the integrity of published content and, where necessary, introduce corrections and revisions. They also investigate potential or indicated irregularities in the submissions accepted for publication.
2. The Editor-in-Chief shall take appropriate remedial measures in the event of complaints concerning ethical violations in a submission or published content, as well as initiating the procedure described on the journal website under Procedures in the event of suspected breach of ethics. Should a conflict of interest arise within the Editorial Board, a complaint concerning ethical violations should be filed with the publisher (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, at wydawnictwo@umcs.eu).
3. When considering retractions, announcements concerning a potentially unreliable publication, and amendments to content already published in the journal, the Editor-in-Chief will follow the COPE guidelines for the retraction of articles (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).
4. The editors are required to investigate irregularities in the review and editorial process.
Journal metrics
The Editor-in-Chief must not attempt to influence the standing of the journal by artificially increasing its metrics. In particular, the Editor will not request references to articles published in this or any other journal unless there are genuine scientific reasons for doing so. Authors cannot be obliged to include references to articles authored by any of the editors.
Complaints and appeals
1. Complaints against the journal Etnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury may concern the activities of the journal itself, of members of the Editorial Board, the journal’s staff or its publisher (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press).
2. A complaint may concern, in particular, negligence or improper performance of tasks, as well as violation of the complaining party’s interests on the part of the journal.
3. A complaint against the journal or members of its Editorial Board shall be filed with its Editor-in-Chief, Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska (stanislawa.niebrzegowska-bartminska@mail.umcs.pl).
4. A complaint against the Editor-in-Chief shall be filed with the publisher (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, at wydawnictwo@umcs.eu).
5. A complaint against the publisher shall be filed with the Rector of Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin (rektor@umcs.pl).
6. The relevant supervisory body shall inform the entity whose activities are subject to complaint of its content and oblige it to respond to the allegations made.
7. The body competent to consider the complaint should do so within one month of its submission, notifying the complaining party of the manner of its consideration.
Principles concerning reviewers
1. The detailed rules for preparing reviews are described on the journal website under The review process.
2. A reviewer submits their review in electronic form, from their individual account in the journal editing system. They are provided, in addition to the guidelines for reviewers, with full information concerning the code of ethics applicable to the review process.
Participation in editorial decisions
The review helps the editor to make editorial decisions, as well as helping the author to revise the submission (the review is made available to the author on the double-blind basis).
Timeliness
If a potential reviewer considers himself/herself unable to assess the submission or complete the review in a timely manner, they should notify the editor without delay so that other reviewers can be contacted as soon as possible.
Confidentiality
All submissions under the review process should be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed or discussed with others without the consent of the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be written following the principles of objectivity in the judgements made. Reviewers should clearly express their observations and support them with appropriate arguments.
Citation of sources
1. Reviewers should identify publications not cited in the submission that are relevant to the research presented. Their comments and observations should be accompanied with appropriate citations.
2. The reviewer should also draw the editors’ attention to any relevant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript being reviewed and any other publications of which they are aware.
Openness and conflict of interest
1. Proprietary information or ideas obtained as a result of the review process are treated as confidential and may not be used for personal gain.
2. Reviewers should not undertake the evaluation of manuscripts for which there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationship (on the part of the reviewer) with any of the authors or institutions associated with the submission.
3. If an undisclosed conflict of interest is suspected, the editors shall proceed following the guidelines detailed on the journal website under Procedures in the event of suspected breach of ethics, based on the principles developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
Principles concerning authors
Standards for publication of research results
Authors reporting the results of original research should provide an accurate description of the work carried out and objectively describe its significance. They should also accurately present the data in the body of the submission. The publication should include sufficient detail and references to enable other researchers to use them. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are considered unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Access to and storage of data
1. Authors may be asked to provide for review the research data on which their article is based and/or to meet the journal’s open data requirements.
2. Authors should be prepared to make the data publicly available if possible and should be prepared to store the data for a specified number of years after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors confirm that their contribution is entirely original and that the work of others is correctly cited or references.
Redundant, multiple (duplicate), or simultaneous publication
1. As a rule, an author should not submit articles describing the same research to more than one journal or primary publication. Simultaneous submission of the same work to more than one journal is considered unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
2. A redundant (duplicate) publication is one in which the author duplicates their own previously published work in the form of literal or partial repetition of their own publications or one already published in a different language.
Authorship of submission
1. Authorship of a submission should be limited to those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study.
2. All individuals who have contributed significantly to the submission should be listed as co-authors.
3. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors (as defined above) are listed, that the list does not include any inappropriate individuals, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
4. In order to counteract cases of ghost-writing and guest (gift) authorship, a scan of the statement of relative contribution to the publication (expressed in percentage points), signed by all co-authors, should be attached as an additional file when submitting a manuscript for publication in the journal.
5. In the case of suspected cases of ghost-writing or guest (gift) authorship, the editors proceed in accordance with the principles described on the journal website under Procedures in the event of suspected breach of ethics, based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
6. Other persons who have contributed in important ways to the research project should be mentioned in the “Acknowledgements” section (placed below the body of the article or in a footnote on the first page).
8. Authors are collectively responsible for the submission. It is the responsibility of each author to ensure that issues regarding the accuracy or reliability of any part of the submission are appropriately reviewed and addressed.
Openness and conflict of interest
1. All authors should disclose any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the research results or their interpretation presented in the submission.
2. The authors should inform the editorial office of the journal about the sources of financing the publication, the contribution of scientific and research institutions, associations or other entities (“financial disclosure”).
Significant errors in published content
Changes to the published submission are only possible if significant errors or inaccuracies are detected. In such a case, the author should immediately notify the editor or publisher of the journal and collaborate with them to make any necessary corrections to the online text and/or errata in the printed text.
Submission withdrawal procedure
In exceptional cases, it is possible to withdraw a submission at the request of the author. The author should produce an appropriate statement in which they specify the reasons for withdrawal. The statement should be signed by all authors and sent to the editorial office of the journal (a scan of the signed statement is acceptable).
At the request of the author, a submission may be withdrawn only at the editing stage, before its publication in the journal.
PUBLISHER’S CONFIRMATION
In the event of an alleged or proven violation of the Code of Ethics or a submission that involves forgery or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editors, will take all appropriate steps to clarify the situation and amend the article. This includes a prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most serious cases, complete removal of the work concerned.
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press follows the Code of Ethics and the principles of ethical publication procedure in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE). The publisher supports the journal Etnolingwistyka. Problemy Języka i Kultury through counselling and professional legal assistance, by providing access to the anti-plagiarism software iThenticate - Crossref Similarity Check (https://www.ithenticate.com), by providing access to and technical support for the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which allows the editorial office to manage the publishing process in accordance with the highest quality and ethical standards.
Procedures in the event of suspected breach of ethics
If any signs of scholarly misconduct are identified, the editors of the journal apply the following rules of conduct, based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) and made available under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.
1. Rules of conduct in cases of suspicion of redundant (duplicate) publication
2. Rules of conduct in cases of suspicion of plagiarism
Proceeding in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted and published manuscript
3. Rules of conduct in cases of suspicion of data fabrication
Proceeding in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted and published manuscript
4. Rules of conduct in the event of a request for a change in the list of authors
5. Rules of conduct in cases of suspected ghost, guest, or gift authorship.
Proceeding in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship
6. Rules of conduct in the event of suspected undisclosed conflict of interest
7. Rules of conduct in the event of a suspected ethical issue with a submitted manuscript
Proceeding where the editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
8. Rules of conduct in the event of suspected appropriation of the author’s data or ideas by the reviewer
9. Rules of conduct by the editorial staff in response to whistleblowers’ indication of possible violations of ethical standards
Rules for responding to whistleblowers who have raised their concerns directly or via social media