Ethical rules and obligations of reviewers

The ethics followed by the journal CONTRASTIVE LINGUISTICS are based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/. These ethical norms for publication aim to introduce and apply the best practices on the standards of ethical behavior during all stages of the publishing process of manuscripts submitted to the journal. They set out standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing the journal Contrastive Linguistics: the author, the editorial board, the peer reviewers and the publisher. All the procedures involved in the publication of the journal are compliant with current data protection legislation.

 

Ethical rules and obligations of reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to at least two anonymous reviewers for evaluation are considered confidential and should not be shown or discussed with third parties, nor should they be distributed in any way. This rule applies both to reviewers who have agreed to review the manuscript and to those who have declined to review a manuscript.

In case the invited reviewer considers that they are not qualified experts to the specific scientific field in which the manuscript submitted for evaluation belongs, or that they cannot prepare the review within the deadline specified by the editors, they notify the Editorial Board and decline to review the manuscript, so that another anonymous reviewer may be invited.

If a reviewer invited to evaluate a manuscript believes that there is a conflict of interest with a putative author or several of the authors of the manuscript and/or with their institutions, they should immediately notify the Editorial Board so that another anonymous reviewer be invited.

The prepared review is an important element of the process of publishing manuscripts in the journal Contrastive Linguistics. A review is itself evaluated by the Editorial Board and may be accepted or not by its members. The aim of a peer review is to help authors to improve the quality of their text and is an essential part of the communication between the journal and the reviewer throughout the publishing process.

Peer reviews should be done objectively, based on the scholarly merits of authored materials. The conclusions and the recommendation or reviewer’s decision for publication without corrections, with minor corrections, with revisions or for rejection of the manuscript and its non-publication should be based on comprehensive, clear and categorical arguments that support both the authors and the Editorial Board in making a decision to publish.

No personal criticism of the author(s) by anonymous reviewers is permitted.

The reviewers carefully monitor for cases of plagiarism, or unethical citations, similarity or overlap with other authors' texts. In the occurrence of such a case, the anonymous reviewers notify the Editorial Board, so that appropriate measures can be taken - rejection of the manuscript, its editing or other appropriate steps.

The reviewers also monitor for cases of overlap with other texts by the same author(s). When such a case is established, the anonymous reviewers notify the Editorial Board so that measures can be taken - rejection of the manuscript, its editing, etc.

The peer-reviewed manuscript should not be used by the anonymous reviewers for the reviewer(s)' own research without the express consent of the author(s). Information, topics, ideas, experiments, conclusions from the reviewed manuscript must be kept confidential and not used by the anonymous reviewers for personal purposes or personal gains. This rule also applies to invited reviewers who have declined to evaluate a manuscript.

By uploading the review, the anonymous reviewers declare no conflict of interest. The reviewers sign a declaration of no conflict of interest.

Reviewers must have an ORCID ID or Web of Science Researcher ID.