Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The mission of Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae is to publish thematically and methodologically diverse articles within the research area of the humanities, mainly in the field of literary studies and linguistics (both in the area of Polish and neophilological studies), as well as cultural studies. The biaannual volumes of our journal cover multidisciplinary approaches to the humanities in various aspects. Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae is a biannual journal open to both experienced scholars and young authors who are at the beginning of their academic career. The journal is thus an excellent platform for an intergenerational dialogue and the presentation of different points of view on the topics discussed in each volume. By inviting authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board from internationally renowned academic centres abroad conducting research in the humanities, we are also concerned with the internationalisation of the results of research conducted in Poland. Since 2017, scientific articles have been published thematic issues that present selected literary, linguistic and cultural phenomena.

Section Policies

Open Submissions

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every submitted manuscript is required to go through a peer review process, meaning that manuscripts will be sent to at least two independent Reviewers from outside the institution. In case of manuscripts written in a foreign language, at least one of the Reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution different than the nationality of the Author.

Preferably the journal operates a double-blind peer review process, which means that Authors and Reviewers remain anonymous for the review process. In other cases, the Reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is considered to occur between the Reviewer and the Author in the following cases: a) direct personal relations (i.e., kinship, legal ties, conflict); b) professional subordination; c) direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.

The review must be prepared in a written form and end with an unambiguous conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.

The names of the Reviewers of individual publications/issues are not disclosed; once a year the journal publishes a list of cooperating Reviewers.

Guidelines for reviews:

Step 1: Initial Editor screening
The review process involves several stages and begins once the article has been submitted to the journal. In the first stage, the Editor decides whether the journal is appropriate for the article by asking such questions as: • Did the author follow the journal’s guidelines? • Is this the right journal for the article? • Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful? The editor can reject the article immediately, otherwise it will go to the next stage and to peer review.

Step 2: First round of peer review
The Editor looks for potential Reviewers who are experts in the field. They will be asked to prepare reviews and recommendations concerning the publication of the manuscript.

Step 3: Revise and resubmit
The Author may then revise their article based on the Reviewers’ comments by resubmitting it with any or all of the changes introduced. They may be asked to make further corrections. The article may be rejected if the Editor finds the corrections made by the Author inappropriate.

The Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the members of the Editorial Board. If necessary, they consult the relevant members of the International Advisory Board.

The Author is obliged to take a substantive stance on the comments made in the review.

Criteria for rejecting a scientific article in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF – Philologiae are as follows:

non-compliance with the journal’s profile or thematic scope of the issue;
exceeding the recommended text volume (30,000 characters, including abstracts and bibliography – see editorial rules for more details);
failure to comply with editorial guidelines (see more broadly – editorial requirements);
negative reviews: obtaining two negative reviews results in automatic rejection of the text; in the case of a single negative review, another negative review decides on the rejection of the article; in special cases, the decision to disqualify the text is made by the Editor.

Guidelines for reviewers

General guidelines

1. The reviewer agrees to prepare a review if he considers that the topic and issues of the article are consistent with his competences and research interests, which will allow to prepare a reliable and substantive assessment of the submitted article.

2. The reviewer, agreeing to prepare a review, accepts the deadlines of review in the journal – 2 months. If the reviewer finds that it is not possible to complete the review in a timely manner, he should notify the editor.

3. A reviewer should not undertake a review of articles if he suspects that there may be a conflict of interest resulting from competitiveness, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relations with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted text.

Detailed guidelines - criteria for the evaluation of reviewed texts (scientific articles, review articles, conference reports)

1. The reviewer should evaluate the submitted text, taking into account: the compliance of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal; the substantive side of the text; the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness; the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature, in particular bibliographic items on the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases; the compliance of the abstract, keywords and bibliography with the requirements of the journal; consistency and transparency of the text; linguistic and stylistic level.

2. The reviewer evaluates the compatibility of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal "Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae", which publishes works in the field of humanities: philological, cultural studies, linguistics) or with the thematic scope of a given issue;

3. The reviewer shall state whether the reviewed article is an original scientific work.

4. The review shall indicate in particular:

1. whether the title is consistent with the problematic content of the article;

2. whether the author has described, correctly selected and applied research methods; whether the illustrations, charts or tables provided are legible;

3. whether the research process has been correctly carried out by the author and whether the results obtained are elements of new knowledge; whether he presents arguments and formulates answers to the questions asked, discusses the results obtained by other researchers, determines the importance of the research carried out in the field of linguistics, literary studies or cultural studies.

5. The reviewer of a review article should determine whether the evaluated text discusses a publication important for the field of humanities and whether the author referred to the methodological correctness and substantive side of the reviewed item.

6. The reviewer of the conference report states whether the text defines the subject and purpose of the conference, presents content of the papers presented and indicates the importance of the conference for the humanities.

7. The reviewer determines whether the abstract of the reviewed article meets the requirements indicated in the guidelines for authors:

whether the abstract of the article is consistent with the subject and content of the article and presents the topic of research, main theses, the purpose of the research, the originality of the research approaches, the value for a given scientific discipline,
whether the abstract of the review article determines: the subject and meaning of the reviewed item in the perspective of the relevant scientific discipline, contains the assessment of the logical and methodological correctness of the reviewed item as well as conclusions of the reviewer;
whether the abstract of the conference report specifies: the topic, date and place of the conference, the subject and purpose of the conference, the significance of the conference for a given scientific discipline.

8. The reviewer evaluates whether the keywords were selected correctly.

9. The reviewer evaluates the linguistic and stylistic level, consistency and clarity of the text.

10. The reviewer shall state the compliance of the text with the principles of formatting the text, footnotes and bibliography specified in the guidelines for authors.

Publication Frequency

No 1 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of October current year

No 2 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of December current year

Open Access Policy

Annales UMCS Sec. FF Philologiae is an open access journal, which means it provides free, common, permanent and fast access to its electronic publications of scientific and educational content. Every network user has the right to read, copy, print, distribute, index, cite and search open resources, including full texts of articles, research reports, conference materials, academic lectures, and books published in the Open Access model. They may use the content without financial, legal and technical restrictions while maintaining copyright.

Reviewers

Reviewers co-operating with "Annales UMCS Sectio FF" are senior academic staff members.

2014

Marcin Wołk, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń; Małgorzata Kita, Univeristy of Silesia; Tadeusz Sławek, Univeristy of Silesia; Joanna Jereczek-Lipińska, University of Gdańsk; Dariusz Trześniowski, University of Technology and Humanities in Radom

2015

Barbara Bokus (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Radosław Grześkowiak (Uniwersytet Gdański), Violetta Machnicka (Uniwersytet Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach), Paweł Nowak (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Urszula Paprocka-Piotrowska (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Renata Rusin- Dybalska (Uniwersytet Karola w Pradze), Tadeusz Sławek (Uniwersytet Śląski)

2016

Leszek Bednarczuk (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Stanisław Cygan (Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach), Joanna Czaplińska (Uniwersytet Opolski), Roman Gawarkiewicz (Uniwersytet Szczeciński), Sigal Gisele (Pau University, France - Bayonne IUT), Elżbieta Górska (UniwersytetWarszawski), M. Francis Grossmann (Université Stendhal-Grenoble), Marcin Grygiel (UniwersytetRzeszowski), Kenneth Hanshew (Uniwersytet w Ratyzbonie), Andrzej Juszczyk (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Małgorzata Król (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Agnieszka Libura (Uniwersytet Wrocławski), Beata Obsulewicz-Niewińska (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Maria Jolanta Olszewska (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Ewa Owczarz (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika), Maria Piotrowska (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie), Magdalena Sadlik (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie), Magdalena Sowa(Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Jerzy Speina (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika), Youli Theodosiadou (Aristotle University), Dariusz Trześniowski (Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. K. Pułaskiego w Radomiu), Marcin Wołk (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika)

2017

Hanna Batoreo (Universidade Aberta, Lisboa), Monika Bednarczuk (Ruhr-Universität Bochum), Stanisław Cygan (Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach), Magdalena Czachorowska (Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego); Barbara Dancygier (University of British Columbia); Roman Dąbrowski (Uniwersytet Jagielloński); Pamela Faber (Universidad de Granada); Roman Gawarkiewicz (Uniwersytet Szczeciński); Michał Głowiński (IBL PAN); Krztsztof Gombin (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II); Mónica González-Márquez (RTWH Aachen University); Marcin Grygiel (Uniwersytet Rzeszowski); Andreas Hölzl (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München); Andrzej Juszczyk (Uniwersytet Jagielloński); Lászlo Kálmán Nagy (Uniwersytet Jagielloński); Marek Kochanowski (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku); Dorothee Kohl-Dietrich (Universität Koblenz-Landau); Małgorzata Król (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II); Marcin Lachowski (Uniwersytet Warszawski); Lechosław Lemański (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II); Libor Martinek (Uniwersytet Śląski w Opawie); Lajos Pálfalvi (Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem); Magdalena Sowa (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II); Jolanta Sujecka-Zając (Uniwersytet Warszawski); Paweł Tański (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika); Tomasz Szutkowski (Uniwersytet Szczeciński); Dariusz Trześniowski (Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. K. Pułaskiego w Radomiu); Agnieszka Uberman (Uniwersytet Rzeszowski); Michał Wardzyński (Uniwersytet Warszawski); Anna Wierzbicka (Instytut Sztuki PAN); Marcin Wołk (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika)

2018

Agnieszka Adamowicz-Pośpiech (Uniwersytet Śląski), Halina Bartwicka (Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy), Krzysztof Bogacki (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Joanna Cholewa (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku), Stanisław Cygan (Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach), Paweł Frankowski (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Wiktor Jaruczyk (Wschodnioeuropejski Uniwersytet Narodowy im. Łesi Ukrainki w Łucku), Andrzej Juszczyk (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Estela Klett (Uniwersytet w Buenos Aires), Marek Kochanowski (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku), Ewa Kujawska-Lis (Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski), Magdalena Lipińska (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku), Małgorzata Martynuska (Uniwersytet Rzeszowski), Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Urszula Niewiadomska-Flis (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Natalia Palaszczuk (Akademia Nauk Białorusi), Marek Paryż (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Elżbieta Rokosz-Piejko (Uniwersytet Rzeszowski), Beata Siwek (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Magdalena Sowa (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Wasil Staryczonek (Uniwersytet im. Maksima Tanka w Mińsku), Dorota Śliwa (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Joanna Teske (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II), Piotr Tosiek (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Richard Trim (Université de Toulon), Dorota Várnai (Uniwersytet w Debreczynie), Agata Włodkowska-Bagan (Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego)

2019

Mieczysław Balowski (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland), Elena Berezovich (Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia), Maria Biolik (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland), Orazio Antonio Bologna (Salesian Pontifical University in Rome, Italy), Leonarda Dacewicz (University of Bialystok, Poland), Žaneta Dvořáková (Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic), Viktor Moisiienko (Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University, Ukraine), Vladimir Patras (Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia), Teresa Pluskota (Kazimierz Wielki University, Poland), Renata Przybylska (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland), Atrur Rejter (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Vasilii Suprun (Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University, Russia), Pavel Štĕpán (Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic)

Journal Reviewers in 2020

Tatsiana Autukhovich (State University of Janki Kupała in Grodno, Belarus), Andrzej Baranow (Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania), Hassiba Benaldi (University of Algiers 2, Algeria), Piotr Borek (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Alexandr Brazgunow (Belarusian Academy of Sciences, Belarus), Tadeusz Budrewicz (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Mikałaj Chaustowicz (University of Warsaw, Poland), Mintautas Čiurinskas (Vilnius University, Lithuania), Zsolt Czigányi (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary), Heidi Dahlsveen (University of Oslo, Norway), Hans Färnlöf (Stockholm University, Sweden), Imène Fatmi (University of Algiers 2, Algeria), Sabrina Fatmi (University of Algiers 2, Algeria), Corinne Fournier Kiss (University of Bern, Switzerland), Mariola Jarczyk (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Susana Maria Jimenez (University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), , Spain), Agnieszka Kaim (Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland), Burcu Kayışcı Akkoyun (Boğaziçi University, Turkey), Marek Kaźmierczak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland), Jarosław Klejnocki (University of Warsaw, Poland), Edyta Kociubińska (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Natallia Lameka (Belarusian State University, Belarus), Marta Łukaszewicz (University of Warsaw, Poland), Buata Malela (Mayotte University Center (Majotta), , France), Magdalena Malinowska (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Jadwiga Maszewska (University of Lodz, Poland), Anzhela Melnikava (Belarusian State University, Belarus), Yevhenii Vasylev (Rivne State University of Humanities, Ukraine), Urszula Niewiadomska-Flis (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Joanna Orska (University of Wrocław, Poland), Dawid Maria Osiński (University of Warsaw, Poland), Dariusz Pachocki (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Jędrzej Pawlicki (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland), Snezana Petrova (University “Sts Cyril and Metodius”, Macedonia), Oleh Rarytskyi (Kamianets-Podіlskyi Ivan Ohiienko National University, Ukraine), Yaroslav Redkva (Chernivtsi National University, Ukraine), Elżbieta Rokosz-Piejko (University of Rzeszow, Poland), Marion Rutz (Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany), Jörg Schulte (University of Cologne, Germany), Gisele Vernhet Sigal (University of Pau and Pays de l’Adour (UPPA), France), Ludmiła Sińkowa (Belarusian State University in Minsk, Belarus), Beata Siwek (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Ryszard Siwek (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Ludmiła Szypielewicz (University of Warsaw, Poland), Joanna Teske (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Grzegorz Trościński (University of Rzeszow, Poland), Theodora Tsimpouki (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece), Kseniia Tverianovich (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia), Halina Tychko (Belarusian State University, Belarus), Ewa Wierzbowska (University of Gdansk, Poland), Marcin Wołk (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland), Witold Wołowski (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Beata Zawadka (University of Szczecin, Poland), Aleksandra Zywert (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland)

2021

Irina Adelgejm (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia), Hryhorij Arkuszyn (Lesya Ukrainka Volyn State University, Ukraine)), Olha Bandrovska (Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine), Andrzej Baranow (Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania), Michala Benešová (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Zbigniew Białas (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Piotr Biłos (Polish Institute in Paris, France), Hamamata Camara (Félix Houphouët-Boigny University, Ivory Coast), Stanisław Cygan (Jan Kochanowski University of Kielce, Poland), Karolina Czerska (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland), Leonarda Dacewicz (University of Bialystok, Poland), Mirosław Dawlewicz (Vilnius University, Lithuania), Dilyana Dencheva (St. Clement of Ohrid University of Sofia, Bulgaria), Katarzyna Duda (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland), Irena Fedorowicz (Vilnius University, Lithuania), Karen Ferreira-Meyers (University of Eswatini, Eswatini), Jiří Fiala (Palacku University, Czech Republic), Roman Gawarkiewicz (University of Szczecin, Poland), Joanna Getka (University of Warsaw, Poland), Svietlana Goncharova-Grabovskaya (Belarusian State University, Belarus), Margreta Grigorova (St. Ciril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria), Olga Guszczewa (independent researcher, Australia), Petro Ivanyshyn (State Pedagogical University of Ivan Franko, Ukraine), Wasyl Iwaszkiw (Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine), Edward Jakiel (University of Gdańsk, Poland), Regina Jakubėnas (Vilnius University, Lithuania), Marek Kochanowski (University of Bialystok, Poland), Jakub Kornhauser (Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland), Margarita Korzo (Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia), Krystyna Kossakowska-Jarosz (University of Opole, Poland), Andrzej K. Kuropatnicki (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Beata Kuryłowicz (University of Bialystok, Poland), Luigi Marinelli (Sapienza University of Rome, Italy), Miloš Mistrik (University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovakia), Mercedes Soto Melgar (University of Granada, Spain), Marek Nalepa (University of Rzeszów, Poland), Alina Naruszewicz-Duchlińska (University of Warmia and Mazury, Poland), Dariusz Nowacki (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Beata Obsulewicz-Niewińska (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland), Dawid Osiński (University of Warsaw, Poland), Małgorzata Ostrówka (Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland), Brygida Pudełko (University of Opole, Poland), Renata Rusin Dybalska (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Magdalena Sadlik (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Robert Skoczek (University of Martin Luther in Halle-Wittenberg, Germany), Grażyna Starak (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Patryk Szaj (Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland), Tatiana Szkapienko (Baltic University of Emmanuela Kant, Russia), Danuta Szymonik (University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Poland), Artur Tworek (University of Wroclaw, Poland), Irena Vaňková (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Robert Westerfelhaus (College of Charleston, USA), Joanna Wilk-Racięska (University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland), Marcin Wołk (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland), Rafał Wójcik (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland).

Tasks of the Scientific Board

The members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board of the journal establish the main topic of each volume. They also prepare calls for papers and publish them on the website of the journal. CFPs may also be sent to individual researchers in Poland and abroad. The members of the Editorial Board identify papers that should be desk rejected, and select reviewers for accepted papers. When necessary, the members of the Board consult the experts from the Advisory Board. Proofreaders correspond with authors and international reviewers, and ensure the high standard of papers published in the journal.

Tasks of the International Advisory Board

The Advisory Board of Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF – Philologiae is an advisory and consultative body supporting the Editiorial Board. Their tasks include:

a) monitoring the scientific quality of the journal;

b) determining, in consultation with the Editorial Board, the scope of research undertaken by the journal (i.e., the main theme of the issue);

c) promoting the journal in their scientific circles;

d) helping in selecting Reviewers.

Indexing

Index Copernicus International (ICI Journals Master List),

BazHum,

CEJSH,

ERIH Plus

PBN

Arianta

Bibliotekanauki.pl

Archiving

Article files are archived in the journal's system.

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

Code of conduct and malpractice policy

1. DUTIES OF EDITORS

1.1. Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals.

1.2. Editors strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.

1.3. Editors strive to constantly improve their journal.

1.4. Editors have in-house procedures to assure the quality of the material to be published, including plagiarism control for new articles.

1.5. Editors put freedom of expression as the primary value of each contribution.

1.6. Editors strive to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

1.7. Editors make sure business needs do not compromise intellectual and ethical standards.

1.8. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

1.9. Editors encourage suggestions of authors, readers, international advisory board members, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.

1.10. Editors are aware of research into peer review and publishing and continually reassess their journal’s processes in the light of new findings.

1.11. Editors strive to ensure appropriate technical resources or guidance from experts (technical designers, statistical experts) needed to maintain high quality of the journal.

1.12. Editors support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct.

1.13. Editors support initiatives to educate researchers and prospective authors about publication ethics.

1.14. Editors assess the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revise policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct.

1.15. Editors attempt to ensure that any publication appearing in the journal reflects the message of the reported article and is put in its original context.

2. RELATIONS WITH READERS

2.1. Readers are informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

2.2. All publications are reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate), the identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed, a list of reviewers is published once a year. Reviewers are competent to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests.

2.3. There are no non-peer-reviewed sections in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF –Philologiae.

2.4. Editors strive to develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles.

2.5. The journal adopts authorship system that promotes good practice and discourages misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors).

2.6. The journal informs readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

3. RELATIONS WITH AUTHORS

3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the readership of the journal. No other factors, such as authors' origin, affiliation, academic title or experience play a decisive role in acceptance of manuscripts. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish are not in any way determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

3.2. Editors do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless copyright infringement or plagiarism are identified with the submission.

3.3. A description of peer review process is published in the code of conduct below, and editors are ready and willing to justify any important deviation from the described processes:

Each publication is reviewed by at least two external reviewers.
The submissions are subject to the double blind review process.
The review is made in a written form with a clear conclusion on acceptance or rejection of the submission.
The reviewing procedure and the reviewer file are published on the Journal’s website at https://journals.umcs.pl/ff/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess.

3.4. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF –Philologiae has a mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. The author who wishes to appeal against the reviewing outcome needs to make a clearly justified statement and direct it to the Head of the Institute of Linguistics and Literature Studies UMCS, arkadiusz.baglajewski@mail.umcs.pl.

3.5. Editors publish submission guidelines detailing what is expected of authors. These guidelines are regularly updated and should refer to this code.

4. RELATIONS WITH REVIEWERS

4.1. Editors provide regularly updated guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

4.2. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4.3. The journal has a system to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected. The identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed; a list of reviewers is published once a year for all the articles published in this year.

4.4. Editors strive to ensure peer review at the journal is fair, unbiased and timely.

4.5. Editors have a system to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

4.6. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions as well as on the originality of submissions, possibility of redundant publication or plagiarism.

4.7. Editors strive to encourage academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process.

4.8. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.

4.9. Editors develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and update this on the basis of reviewer performance to make sure it reflects the community for the journal. A wide range of sources beyond personal contacts are used to identify potential new reviewers.

4.10. Editors cease to use reviewers whose reviews are not of acceptable quality or who do not meet deadlines.

5. RELATIONS WITH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

5.1. Editors provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

5.2. Submissions from editorial board members are anonymised and subject to the standard reviewing procedure to ensure unbiased review. The editorial position is not a factor deciding about the acceptance of the article.

5.3. Editor-in-Chief continually strives to identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal.

5.4. Editor-in-Chief regularly reviews the composition of the editorial board and provides guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties.

5.5. The following editorial responsibilities are shared among the members of the editorial board:

supporting and promoting the journal;
seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions;
reviewing submissions to the journal;

5.6. Editor-in-Chief consults editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge.

6. RELATIONS WITH JOURNAL OWNERS AND PUBLISHERS

6.1. The relationship of editors to Journal publishers is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2. Editors make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without any interference from the journal owner.

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE

7.1. Editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish.

8. PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL DATA

8.1. Editors obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction.

8.2. Editors protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions.

9. ENCOURAGING ETHICAL RESEARCH

9.1. Editors endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines on ethics (e.g. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222, British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/, American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx).

9.2. Editors seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

9.3. Editors request authors' clarification on ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to ensure child student protection) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed.

10. DEALING WITH POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT

10.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them, both in case of published and unpublished papers.

10.2. Editors do not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct, instead, they are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

10.3. Editors first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.

10.4. Editors make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted.

11. ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ACADEMIC RECORD

11.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected immediately at the request of anyone interested in the article (author, reviewer, reader, publisher).

11.2. Editors ensure that published material is securely archived in CEEOL and EBSCO databases as well as on the Journal's secure server.

11.3. Authors of published papers are free to republish the articles elsewhere provided clear reference and link to the original publication is given.

12. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

12.1. Editors are alert to intellectual property issues and strive to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

12.2. Editors support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism.

12.3. Editors are willing to work with the publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) of articles published in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF – Philologiae.

13. ENCOURAGING DEBATE

13.1. Editors encourage and are willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.

13.2. Authors of criticised material are given the opportunity to respond. They are asked to produce their response within the period of two weeks. If they decide to do so, both the criticism and the response are published in the same issue, in that order.

13.3. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

14. COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

14.1. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF – Philologiae has a clear policy on ensuring that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions. There is no advertising in individual articles.

14.2. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio FF – Philologiae does not accept sponsored articles for publication. Articles may be submitted by representatives of companies, however, they are subject to the same reviewing procedure and standards as other submissions.

15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) POLICY

The journal has a clear and publicly accessible Conflict of Interest (COI) policy, which aligns with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and is monitored for compliance during peer review and editorial decision‑making.

15.1. The policy requires all Authors to disclose any potential financial, personal, institutional, or professional interests that could influence the conduct, interpretation, or reporting of research.

15.2. Authors are required upon submission to declare all relevant support and interests.

15.3. Editors and Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists, in line with standard ethical norms.

15.4. Failure to disclose conflicts may lead to rejection or correction/retraction of published work.

16. AUTHORSHIP POLICY

The journal's publication process follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

16.1. By submitting an article, the Author claims it to be their own original work, unpublished before either as a whole or in significant parts, and not under consideration elsewhere.

16.2. All persons stated as Authors should have made a significant contribution to the paper. Guest authorship is not accepted. To be considered an Author, the person needs to fulfil all three criteria listed below:

They have made a significant contribution into the research project or the concept on which the project is based, or have gathered or analysed or interpreted data obtained in the research;
They prepared the first draft of the text or played a significant part in its preparation, or provided critical examination of its intellectual content;
They have approved the final version of the article that has been submitted for publication.

16.3. All persons who have contributed to the final version of the paper should be listed as co-authors (the paper cannot be a product of “ghost-writing”).

16.4. The submitting Author takes responsibility for the veracity of their statements regarding the absence of ghost-writers and guest authors.

16.5. The Authors disclose the sources of funding of research on which the submitted article is based and contributions made by scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities.

16.6. The articles are evaluated purely on the basis of professional and linguistic competence. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof, national origin, citizenship status and political beliefs of the Authors play no part in the process of paper evaluation.

16.7. All submissions are processed confidentially by the Editorial Team.

16.8. In case of justified suspicions of scientific misconduct (plagiarism, unjustified duplication of articles or their fragments, false authorship attribution, non-attribution of due authorship, lack of transparency regarding a conflict of interest, falsification or fabrication of data), the Editorial Team will suspend publication or retract the already published article.

16.9. All identified cases of scientific misconduct will be publicly exposed (this includes notification of the institution employing the author, relevant authorities and professional associations).

17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This document has been based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and COPE guidelines for journal editors. These resources are available at https://publicationethics.org.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

The journal permits the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including generative AI systems, only as supportive instruments, while maintaining full human responsibility for the content of publications and the editorial process.”

For authors

Authors must disclose any use of AI that goes beyond language editing, stylistic revision, or formatting.
Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and verification of all content, including AI-generated material.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors and may not be cited as scientific sources.

For reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors should not use AI to generate reviews, evaluations, or editorial decisions due to risks such as breaches of confidentiality, bias, and the generation of inaccurate or fabricated information.
Limited use of AI for language editing is acceptable, provided confidentiality is maintained.

For the journal and publisher

Any routine use of automated tools is disclosed and subject to prior testing.
Automated processes (e.g., similarity checks, detection of integrity issues) are conducted under human oversight (“human in the loop”), and their results are verified by editorial staff.

Failure to comply with this policy may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the publication.

ISSN: 0239-426X

Username
Password
Remember me