­­Ethical Rules of the Translations of Slavic Literatures Journal

Ethical Rules

(Ethical Rules considers the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in accordance with the principles of ethics and morality in science and the Committee of Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Code of Conduct).

For Authors

All Authors mentioned in the article must have significantly contributed to the research. If there is more than one author (i.e. the translator(s) of the article as well), they must define the level of their contribution expressed in terms of the percentage of participation.

All Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process. Authors complete two forms. In the first one, they take a stance on the reviews and declare if they are going to accept the suggestions offered in the reviews. If they do not accept the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers, they must account for their decision. In the other, they specify if the article is an unpublished work, if it has been published previously, and if the illustrations are their own (the forms can be found at: http://www.pls.us.edu.pl/en/documents-for-authors/)

All Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. They can not change the article too much so as not to cause one more reviewing procedure. All retractions or corrections of mistakes the Editor sends to reviewers. If the reviewers do not accept them, the editors inform the Author(s) and ask for the acceptance of the reviewers’ suggestions. If the Authors do not accept the reviewers’ suggestions, the editor reserves the right to withdraw the article.

List of references, financial support

Authors are requested to provide information about all the institutions contributing to the published article (substantially, financially or otherwise). Each article must have a complete list of references written in MLA style at the end of the text.

Research may not be published in more than one journal

The journal does not accept articles that have been previously published. There are two exceptions: (1) the journal may publish a Polish translation of an already published article in another language and (2) a situation when for a certain thematic number of the journal any previously published article that appears to be crucial for the theme and concept of the whole number, then the editor tries to get copyright acceptance to publish this article. In the editorial board’s opinion this is typical exception that proves the rule – Translation of Slavic Literatures does not accept articles that have been previously published. In case of both exceptions it must be noticed in the first footnote where the version in the original language was published before. So far, until 2017,  the journal has not published this kind of article.

If Authors notice any errors in their articles, they should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Board, together with the publisher and in collaboration with the Authors, will make every effort to correct them.

Authors should avoid all kinds of conflicts of interest (in the case of the issues explored by the Translations of Slavic Literatures journal, a negative or positive evaluation of the translations done or produced by particular persons or institutions with whom and with which Authors are bound professionally or personally is an example of such a conflict).

For Reviewers

For the evaluation of each article, at least two independent Polish and/or foreign reviewers are appointed outside of the editorial staff and outside of the center issuing the publication and outside of the center the Author originates from. They are specialists in the field of the presented subjects. Reviews adhere to the model referred to as ‘double-blind review process’. Thus, they are anonymous, so the reviewers and authors do not know one another’s names. The review should include an evaluation of the proposed volume and its contribution to the research in the field of the subject matter and an evaluation of individual article according to the template, i.e. the review form (downloadable) from the website of the journal Translations of Slavic Literatures (Przekłady Literatur Słowiańskich) – http://www.pls.us.edu.pl/en/review-form/)

The Editor avoids selecting external peer Reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Reviewers are obliged to observe good reviewing etiquette. If Reviewers discover such a conflict can arise between them and the Author (e.g. a professional or personal relation) or between them and the issues explored by the article (when it comes to the thematic scope of the Translations of Slavic Literatures journal, such a conflict may be caused by a positive or negative evaluation of particular persons or institutions with whom and with which Reviewers or Authors are bound professionally in the field of translation), they are required to immediately notify the Editor of this fact.

Reviewers objectivity

The Editor makes sure that all judgments and findings in the peer-review process are objective. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing an article. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. The Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The Editor upholds these principles.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

Reviewers are aware of potential ethical issues in the article and bring these to the attention of the Editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which the Reviewers have personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. The Editor upholds these principles.

Reviewed articles – confidentiality prior to their publication.

Reviewed articles are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the article with anyone or contact the authors directly. The Editor ensures that confidentiality is observed.

A detailed description of the review process is available at: http://www.pls.us.edu.pl/en/review-procedure-2/.

Reviewers have 60 days to review an article. Reviewers receive a small honorarium (about 10 EUR per article).

For Editors

Editors take the utmost care to ensure high quality of the submitted articles. Before sending an article to a Reviewer, they read it for any mistakes or omissions, and should the need arise, ask the Authors for corrections. Editors will not submit an article for review if think it does not meet scholarly requirements, as defined by Editors.

The Editor removes any identifying information, such as Author’s name or affiliation, any suggestions of the Author’s identity from the manuscript before sending it to the Reviewer. The Editor makes sure that figures and tables do not contain any reference to Author affiliations, chooses file names with care, and ensures that the file’s ‘Properties’ are also anonymised.

In the case the Editor is the Author of the article, his role is taken over by the Editor of the current issue of the journal.

Editors will make every effort to prevent plagiarism, ghost, guest or gift authorship.

Editors keep confidential all information gathered during the publication process except the information included in the article written by the Author and published by the journal.

When selecting Reviewers, Editors take the utmost care to avoid a potential conflict of interest between a given Author and Reviewer (e.g. a professional or personal relation between them).

The Editor’s Policy on Plagiarism

Plagiarism – the definition

Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.

Types of plagiarism

Literal copying

Literal copying is reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. Literal copying is obvious plagiarism and is easy to detect by comparing the articles in question.

 Substantial copying

Substantial copying is reproducing a substantial part of a work, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. In determining what is “substantial,” both the quantity and the quality of the copied content are relevant. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole. Where the essence of a work has been reproduced, even if only a small part of the original work, plagiarism may have occurred. In addition to judging the quantity and quality of the copied content, we consider the following question: Has the author benefited from the skill and judgment of the original author? The degree to which the answer to this question is “yes” will indicate whether substantial copying has taken place.

 Paraphrasing

Copying may take place without reproducing the exact words used in the original work, i.e. without literal or substantial copying. This type of copying is known as paraphrasing.

To determine whether unacceptable paraphrasing has occurred, we apply a test similar to that for substantial copying: look at the quantity and quality of what has been taken and also at whether the second author has benefited from the skill and judgment of the first author. If it seems clear, on a balance of probabilities, that the second author has taken without permission or acknowledgment all or a substantial part of the original work and used it to create a second work, albeit expressed in different words, then such use amounts to plagiarism.

Action in case of suspected plagiarism or reviewer’s complaint about plagiarism in a submitted manuscript:

If the editor has suspected plagiarism or if the reviewer informs the editor about suspicion of plagiarism in a submitted manuscript, the anti-plagiarism procedure based on the following activities is started:

–          The editor, suspecting or receiving information from the reviewer about the suspicion of plagiarism in a submitted manuscript, takes procedural steps, informing the reviewer about them;

–          The editor gets full documentary evidence if not already provided;

–          The editor check degree of copying, using an anti-plagiarism software, a simple comparison of the relevant (two) texts or more thoughtful analysis in case of paraphrasing or types of ‘self-plagiarism’;

–          In case the editor finds out that there is a clear plagiarism (unattributed use of large portions of texts presented as if they were by the plagiarist and/or large portions of text basing on the same data with identical or very similar results and/or evidence that the author attempted to hide the duplicate, e.g. by changing the title or order of the authors or by not quoting the previous work), he contacts the corresponding author in writing, enclosing signed “authorship statement” stating that work is original/the author’s own and documentary evidence of plagiarism;

o   If the author responses wit satisfactory explanation (unintentional error or unclear journal instructions or legitimate publication) the editor contacts the author, other authors if possible and reviewers explaining the magazine’s position and presenting expected future behavior in such cases.

o   If the author responses with unsatisfactory explanation or admits guilt the editor contacts the author of the plagiarism, reviewers, other authors if possible, informing about the situation of plagiarism and rejecting the manuscript, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. The editor can consider informing the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution.

o   If there is any author’s response the editor contacts all other authors, reviewers, the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, as well as readers of the journal on the pages of the journal, informing about the situation of plagiarism and rejecting the manuscript, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. If no response of the author’s institution, the editor keeps contacting the institution every 3–6 months. If no resolution, the editor considers contacting other authorities in the country.

–          In case the editor finds out minor copying of short phrases only (e.g. in discussion of research article from non-native language speaker or misattribution of data or no source information available), he contacts the author in neutral terms, expressing disappointment and explaining the journal’s position, asks the author to rephrase copied phrases or include as direct quotations with references and proceeds with the review.

–          In case the editor finds no problems with plagiarism or copying, he informs reviewers about the decision to continue the review process.

Action in case of suspected plagiarism/the reader’s complaint about suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript:

If the editor has suspected plagiarism or if the reader informs the editor about suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript, the anti-plagiarism procedure based on the following activities is started:

–          The editor, suspecting or receiving information from the reader about the suspicion of plagiarism in a submitted manuscript, takes procedural steps, informing the reader about them in the letter;

–          The editor gets full documentary evidence if not already provided;

–          The editor checks degree of copying, using an anti-plagiarism software, a simple comparison of the relevant (two) texts or more thoughtful analysis in case of paraphrasing or types of ‘self-plagiarism’.

–          In case the editor finds out that there is a clear plagiarism (unattributed use of large portions of text presented as if they were by the plagiarist and/or large portions of text basing on the same data with identical or very similar results and/or evidence that the author attempted to hide the duplicate, e.g. by changing the title or order of the authors or by not quoting the previous work), he contacts the corresponding author in writing, enclosing signed “authorship statement” stating that the work is original/the author’s own and documentary evidence of plagiarism;

o   If the author responses with satisfactory explanation (unintentional error or unclear journal instructions or legitimate publication), the editor considers publishing the statement on the repetition of the publication or its withdrawal. The editor contacts the author, reviewers, other authors if possible, and the reader explaining the journal’s actions and position and presenting expected future behavior in such cases.

o   If the author responses with unsatisfactory explanation or admits guilt, the editor considers publishing the statement on the repetition of the publication or its withdrawal. The editor contacts the author of the plagiarism, reviewers, other authors if possible and the reader informing about the situation of plagiarism and repetition of the publication or its withdrawal, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. The editor considers informing author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, as well the readers of the journal on the pages of the journal.

o   If there is any author’s response, the editor contacts all other authors, reviewers, the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, informing about the situation of plagiarism and withdrawal of the publication, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. If no response of the author’s institution, the editor keeps contacting the institution every 3–6 months. If no resolution, the editor considers publishing the statement on the withdrawal of the publication and contacting other authorities in the country.

–          In case the editor finds out minor copying of short phrases only (e.g. in discussion of research article from non-native language speaker or misattribution of data or no source information available), he contacts the author in neutral terms, expressing disappointment, explaining journal’s position. The editor discusses publishing correction giving reference to the original article(s) if this has been omitted. When the editor has reason to believe that the failure to refer to the earlier text(s) was intentional, he considers informing the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at author’s institution. The editor informs the reader (and plagiarized author(s)) of journal’s actions.

–          In case the editor finds no problems with plagiarism or copying, he informs the reader about the result and decision to leave the publication unchanged.

The editor may involve other peer reviewers, editorial board members, or experts in the relevant field (anonymously as to the complainant and if possible as to the identity of the complained-about authors), using standard peer review procedures, to review the texts (especially if the allegation is a more complex form of plagiarism).

The Editor’s Policy on ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship

Ghost, guest or gift authorship – the definition

Ghost authorship is when a person who made substantial contributions to a publication is not mentioned as an Author or, in the case of purely technical support insufficient for authorship, the person is not acknowledged in a publication.

Guest or gift authorship is when a person appears in the publication as an Author despite insignificant contribution or even absence from the scientific process.

Action in case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript:

If the editor has suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship or if the reviewer informs the editor about suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript, the anti-ghost, guest or gift authorship procedure based on the following activities is started:

–          The editor, suspecting or receiving information from the reviewer about the suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript, takes procedural steps, informing the reviewer about them;

–          The editor gets full documentary evidence if not already provided;

–          The editor contacts the author and asks for explanation.

o   If the author responses with satisfactory explanation (e.g. unintentional error) the editor informs the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s) about the situation and asks the Author for adding missing author to the list or removing/moving to Acknowledgments section guest/gift Author(s). All Authors have to agree for authorship change and complete Author’s statement and Statement concerning work submitted for publication.

o   If the author responses with unsatisfactory explanation, the editor contacts the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s), informing about the situation and rejecting the manuscript, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. The editor can consider informing the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution.

o   If there is any author’s response the editor contacts the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s), the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, informing about the situation and rejecting the manuscript, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. If no response of the author’s institution, the editor keeps contacting the institution every 3–6 months. If no resolution, the editor considers contacting other authorities in the country.

Action in case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship/the reader’s complaint about suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship in a published manuscript:

If the editor has suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship or if the reader informs the editor about suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship in a published manuscript, the anti-ghost, guest or gift authorship procedure based on the following activities is started:

–          The editor, suspecting or receiving information from the reader about the suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript, takes procedural steps, informing the reader about them in the letter;

–          The editor gets full documentary evidence if not already provided;

–         The editor contacts the author and asks for explanation.

o   If the author responses with satisfactory explanation (e.g. unintentional error), the editor adds – if he gets agreement for authorship change (in writing) from all authors – missing author to the list or removes/moves to Acknowledgments section guest/gift Author(s). The editor contacts the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s) and the reader explaining the journal’s actions and position and presenting expected future behavior in such cases.

o   If the author responses with unsatisfactory explanation, the editor considers withdrawal of the publication. The editor contacts the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s) and the reader informing about the situation, still trying to get more information from all authors, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. The editor considers informing author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, as well the readers of the journal on the pages of the journal.

o   If there is any author’s response, the editor contacts the missing author, reviewers, guest/gift Author(s), the author’s superior and/or the person responsible for research governance at the author’s institution, informing about the situation, as well explaining the magazine’s position in such cases and presenting expected behaviors. If no response of the author’s institution, the editor keeps contacting the institution every 3–6 months. If no resolution, the editor considers publishing the statement on the withdrawal of the publication and contacting other authorities in the country.