Publication Ethics
The ethical policy of Journal of Linguistic and Rhetorical Studies is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and complies with International Committee of Journal Editorial Board codes of conduct. Readers, authors, reviewers and editors should follow these ethical policies once working with this journal. Please read below for further information on publishing and ethical guidelines:
(http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf)
Only persons who meet authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content including: (i) they must have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (ii) they must have drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) they must have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after written permission for them to be named, has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the earliest opportunity, typically by submitting a disclosure form during the manuscript submission process and including a statement within the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise from financial relationships (e.g., honoraria, educational grants, funding, participation in speakers' bureaus, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial factors (e.g., personal or professional relationships, affiliations, or beliefs relevant to the manuscript's subject matter). All sources of financial support for the research must be transparently disclosed, including specific grant numbers where applicable.
Authors are expected to present their findings accurately, comprehensively, and with clarity. Manuscripts should contain sufficient detail and proper references to enable reproducibility of the work. Misrepresentation, fraudulent claims, or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered unethical and unacceptable. Underlying data must be represented faithfully and without omission of significant information.
Authors may be required to provide raw data for editorial review and should be prepared to share their data publicly when feasible. Data must remain accessible to qualified researchers for at least 10 years following publication, preferably through institutional or subject-specific data repositories, provided participant confidentiality and proprietary data rights are protected.
All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification. Authors must ensure their work is original and cite any material or concepts derived from other sources appropriately. Plagiarism may include but is not limited to, presenting another’s work as one’s own, copying or paraphrasing substantial portions of another’s work without proper attribution, or claiming results from research conducted by others. All forms of plagiarism constitute unethical publishing behavior and are strictly prohibited.
Manuscripts reporting essentially the same research should not be submitted to more than one journal simultaneously or published in multiple venues. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is unethical and unacceptable.
Authors are required to engage actively in the peer review process. This includes promptly responding to editorial requests for raw data, ethical approval documentation, patient consents, and copyright permissions. For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors must address reviewers' comments systematically, provide a point-by-point response, and resubmit within the specified timeframe.
Authors must explicitly acknowledge all sources of funding and support for their research. Proper credit should also be given to prior works that have influenced the study. Private communications or confidential information must not be used or disclosed without written permission from the source. Authors must avoid using privileged information obtained during manuscript or grant reviews without the explicit consent of the original authors.
Authors must promptly notify the journal's editors or publisher upon discovering significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work. They must collaborate with the journal to issue corrections, such as an erratum, or to retract the paper if necessary. If third-party concerns about errors are validated, authors must cooperate with the journal to address the issues or provide evidence supporting the article's accuracy.
(http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf)
Editors are responsible for ensuring that all manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a rigorous peer-review process, typically involving at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief holds the primary responsibility for making decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. These decisions are based on the validation of the research, its relevance and importance to the journal's audience, reviewers’ evaluations, and adherence to legal and ethical standards, including those related to libel, copyright, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers when making the final decision.
Editors must evaluate all submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit, without discrimination based on the authors' nationality, ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation. Editorial and publication decisions should remain independent of external influences, including governmental or other organizational policies. The Editor-in-Chief maintains full authority over the journal's editorial content and the timing of its publication.
Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts throughout the review process. Systems must be in place to ensure the protection of materials under review and to safeguard the identities of both authors and reviewers. Editors must take all reasonable steps to prevent the misuse or unauthorized disclosure of any part of a manuscript during the review and publication processes.
Editors must process all manuscripts with strict confidentiality, disclosing their content only to individuals directly involved in the review and publication process, such as reviewers and corresponding authors. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. Such conflicts may arise from competitive, collaborative, financial, or personal relationships with the authors, organizations, or entities connected to the work. In such cases, an alternative editor or editorial board member should be assigned to handle the manuscript.
Editors must take appropriate actions when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted or published manuscript. All reports of unethical behavior will be thoroughly investigated, regardless of the time elapsed since publication. Editors will adhere to the COPE Flowcharts for managing cases of suspected misconduct. If an investigation confirms the validity of an ethical concern, the journal will take appropriate corrective actions, which may include issuing a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other formal notifications.
(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)
Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly communication and a critical component of the scientific process. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts with objectivity, fairness, and professionalism, ensuring that their feedback is free of personal bias. Comments and judgments should be expressed clearly and supported by evidence to assist the editor in making informed decisions. Additionally, reviewers should aim to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts.
Reviewers who feel unqualified to assess the assigned manuscript or cannot complete the review on time should inform the editor promptly and withdraw from the review process. If reviewers know of other qualified experts, they may recommend them to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must also recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts where they have previously provided written comments to the author or if they have any conflicts of interest arising from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal, or other relationships with any of the individuals or entities associated with the manuscript.
Reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all information in the manuscripts they review. Manuscripts must be treated as privileged information and should not be shared or discussed with anyone except the Editor-in-Chief. This confidentiality requirement extends to reviewers who decline the invitation to review a manuscript.
Reviews must be conducted with complete objectivity. Feedback and observations should be articulated clearly and supported by logical arguments to enable authors to make improvements. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and should be avoided at all times.
Reviewers should identify any relevant work that the authors have not cited and ensure that proper citations are included for any statements or findings previously reported. If reviewers identify significant overlap or similarities between the submitted manuscript and other published work, they must notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, whether competitive, collaborative, or arising from relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the manuscript. Reviewers who recognize such conflicts must inform the editors promptly and decline the review to allow alternative reviewers to be selected.
Unpublished material revealed in a manuscript under review must not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the explicit written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas gained through the peer review process must remain confidential and must not be exploited for personal gain, even by reviewers who decline the invitation to review.
(http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20publishers%20FINAL_1_0.pdf)