1. 1. Principles of Professional Ethics of the Editorial Board and Publisher.

The Editorial Board (editor-in-chief) of the Journal Scandinavian Philology consistently works at full respect of the principles of editorial ethics in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE) (, as well as the experience of reputable international journals and publishers.

The board is responsible for publication of authors’ works in accordance with the fundamental principles of:

  • relevance and originality of research;
  • credibility of results and scientific significance;
  • recognition of contribution of other researchers to investigations in the field and the mandatory presentation of appropriate references to the publications used;
  • reviewing all errors and inaccuracies discovered by the author or by the editorial staff in a due time.

The editor-in-chief must not allow publication of material if there is a reason to believe that it has been plagiarized or contains materials banned from publication. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used or transferred to any third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of editing must remain confidential.

Both the editor-in-chief and the publisher are responsible for answering complaints concerning manuscripts under consideration or other unpublished materials. In the case of a conflict situation, they must take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.

  1. Principles to be complied with by an author of scientific publications.


Author (or authors’ team) takes primary responsibility for newness/originality and reliability of results of a scientific study that implies compliance with the following principles:


  • Authors of a manuscript should present reliable results of their studies. Deliberately erroneous or fraud statements are unacceptable.


  • Authors should guarantee that results of their study given in the submitted manuscript are fully original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be accompanied by a mandatory reference to their author and primary source. Excessive adoptions, as well as any form of plagiarism, including improperly formatted citations, rephrasing or appropriation of rights for somebody else’s results, are unethical and unacceptable.


  • It is obligatory to recognize contributions of all persons who anyhow influenced the study, in particular, giving references to the works that had been of importance during study conduct.


  • Authors should not submit a manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is under consideration elsewhere, as well as a paper that has been already published.


  • All persons who contributed significantly to the research are to be included into the authors’list. It is impossible to include those who did not participate in the study into the author’s list.
  • If an Author reveals significant errors or inaccuracies in his/hers manuscript when it is being considered or after it has been published, he/she should inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible.


  1. Ethical principles in a reviewer’s function.


Reviewer provides his/hers scientific expertise in evaluation of author’s materials, whereby his/hers activities should be unbiased and compliant with the following principles:


  • Any manuscript received for reviewing should be regarded as a confidential document and should not be passed to third parties for examination or discussion, if it is not authorized by the Editorial Board.


  • A reviewer should give objective and well-reasoned assessment to results of a study. To criticize the author personally is inadmissible.


  • Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used by a Reviewer for his/hers personal purposes.


  • If a reviewer thinks that his qualifications are insufficient for evaluation of the manuscript, or that he/she cannot be impartial, e.g., in the case of a conflict of interests with the author or the institution, he should inform the editor-in-chief about it with a request to exclude him from the process of reviewing that manuscript.