Editorial Ethics
Publishing ethics of the periodical Philologia Classica is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. The publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal is expected to follow the standards of ethical behavior for all the parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, editors, and reviewers.
Duties of authors
1. No multiple manuscript submission
Authors should not submit manuscripts with essentially the same content to more than one publisher. Otherwise submitting the same manuscript to more than one publisher simultaneously is considered to be unethical, unacceptable publishing behavior.
2. Source acknowledgement
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the content of their work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the original source.
A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work.
If a research has been supported by any research funds, it should be pointed out by authors.
3. No plagiarism or fraudulent data
Plagiarism is unethical. Authors are required to submit only their original manuscripts. In case material – in whatever form — of others is used, it must be appropriately cited or quoted.
Manuscripts should not contain fraudulent data.
4. Authors listing
Only those authors who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript should be listed as authors or co-authors.
5. Correction of mistakes and errors
Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process, to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes in the manuscripts.
Authors who discover a major error in their own published work, are required to notify the publisher or editor and assist with withdrawal or correction of the manuscript.
Duties of the Editors
1. Unbiased
Editors should evaluate manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without any bias to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality and anonymity
Material from submitted, unpublished manuscripts should be kept confidential and must not be used by others without an express written consent of the author. Editors should have no conflict of interests with respect to articles they reject/accept.
No part or data of the work rejected can be used either by reviewers or the journal staff, until the paper has been published.
Editors should preserve anonymity of reviewers.
3. Safeguarding professional ethics
Editors provide publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
They also provide safeguarding of publishing ethics by the editorial board.
4. Publication decisions
Editors are ultimately responsible for the acceptance / rejection of submitted manuscripts. The publishing editor may confer with the editor-in chief, editorial board members, or reviewers in making this decision.
A decision about the publication of the work proceeds from the scientific and practical value of the research; it should be fair and comply with professional and scientific ethics.
Duties of peer reviewers
1. Contribution to editorial decisions
The purpose of peer review is to assist editors in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper through editorial communications.
2. Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
The reviewing should be completed within the time frame established by the journal.
3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts in the review process are to be treated as confidential and not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The reviewing is strictly anonymous.
4. Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. The reviewers’ conclusions should be based exclusively on the scientific value of the work. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Source acknowledgement
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Material from submitted, unpublished manuscripts should be kept confidential and must not be used by others without an express written consent of the author. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
