编辑政策

宗旨及范围

The mission of the journal

The scientific-theoretical journal “Neophilology” is one of the world’s few periodicals designed to discuss theoretical and practical problems in the field of modern humanities. The distinctive feature of the journal “Neophilology” is its diverse subject matter of articles aimed at the discussion of relevant problems in the field of traditional and cognitive linguistics, text and discourse theory, society’s speech activity, intercultural communication, Internet discourse and linguistic personality, which represents the “snapshot” of the development of the humanitarian paradigm of the XXI century – a view on language, cognition, culture, and spheres of social life as the basic gestalt of the image of modern neophilological thought. In its publishing part, the journal’s concept is based on the Russian language, which is substantiated by the role of the Russian language in cooperation and mutual understanding during exploration and appropriation of human culture on international and global levels. The Russian language strengthens the Russian state, and at the same time it is an integral and most important part of national culture that reflects the history of Russian people and their spiritual quest.

Aim and Scope

The aim of the journal is to broadly cover new directions of the development of philological science, including those of an interdisciplinary nature, new scientific accomplishments of the humanities direction in the modern multipolar world; to assist the preservation and development of the Russian language in domestic and foreign media and on the Internet.

The essential scope of the journal is not only to disseminate the results of scientific research in the area of modern humanitarian knowledge but also to create a platform for scientific dialogue and debates that take place around language and cognition, linguistic worldview and the dynamics of its fragments, as well as the development of interest of Russian and foreign scientists to these problems in connection with the practice of applying the results of research in understanding the problems of the relationship between the verbal and non-verbal in language and cognition.

 
 

同⾏评审过程

 

Peer-Review Policy

 

Peer-review policy for articles
submitted for publication in the journal “Neophilology”
discussed, amended and approved at the Editorial Board meeting
on Mar. 6, 2025

 

The Editorial Board of the “Neophilology” journal adheres to COPE guidelines when dealing with manuscripts, reviewers and organizing the review process. Peer review contributes to the improvement of the quality of published materials, as it determines the significance and originality of the presented articles.

 

TYPE OF PEER-REVIEW

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of “Neophilology”, undergo a mandatory double blind peer review. This means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s names and places of work, and all correspondence is conducted through the editorial staff of “Neophilology”.

 

PEER-REVIEW PERIOD

The review process in the journal “Neophilology” takes on average from 1 to 4 months (up to 120 days). In this period the Editorial Office of the journal includes the time for initial consideration of the manuscript, selection of reviewers, time for preparation of the review, time for revision of the article by the author and repeated review, involvement of additional experts.

 

PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

The decision to select a reviewer for the journal “Neophilology” is made by the Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board.

Each article is sent to at least two reviewers. If different opinions about the manuscript are received, a third expert can be involved.

The Editor of the journal “Neophilology” can give the author one of the following decisions regarding the manuscript:

Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be submitted to the editor for further work. The author will be notified of the publication deadline.

Accept for publication after correction of flaws noted by the reviewer. In this case, the author will be asked to make changes to the manuscript within a week. If the flaws are eliminated or if there is a justified refusal to make changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Accept for publication after correction of flaws noted by the reviewer and after repeated review. In this case, the author will be asked to make the changes within two weeks. The manuscript will be sent for a second review. Within 30 days the author will receive a final decision on the fate of the manuscript.

Reject. In this case, a motivated refusal to publish the manuscript will be sent to the author. Denial of publication does not prohibit authors to send manuscripts to the journal “Neophilology”, in the future, but if publication is denied due to gross violations on the part of the author, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to blacklist the author. In this case, other articles by this author will not be considered.

The percentage of rejected manuscripts is 70%.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” considers three rounds of reviewing, which means that after the first decision to revise the article, the author has two attempts to make changes based on the reviewer’s recommendation or motivate a refusal. If after the third round of review the reviewer sends notes again, the Editor-in-Chief will suggest the author to consider the possibility of publication in another journal or resubmit the article for review with the changes made in six months.

If the author does not plan to finalize the article, they should notify the journal’s editorial office. Work on the article will be terminated.

If the author has a conflict of interest with an expert who could potentially become a reviewer of the manuscript, they should notify the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” will find another reviewer if necessary.

In the process of reviewing the manuscript, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Neophilology” has the right to appoint a new reviewer for the manuscript.

The journal “Neophilology” may publish articles by the Editor-in-Chief, their Deputy, and members of the Editorial Board, but there should be no abuse of power. Manuscripts of the journal employees are sent for double-blind review only to external experts. Only external experts are involved to resolve contradictions and conflict situations. In case of a conflict regarding the fate of the Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the members of the Editorial Board.

When publishing articles by members of the Editorial Board, Editor-in-Chief and their Deputy, information about the authors’ affiliation with the journal is indicated in the “Conflict of Interest” section.

The journal “Neophilology” does not exempt scientists from peer-review regardless of their status.

Copies of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal “Neophilology” for at least 5 years.

The Editorial Board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation and to the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission upon receiving a corresponding request.

 

REVIEWERS PANEL

All incoming manuscripts are reviewed by external experts who have experience in the relevant subject area and publications on the topic of the manuscript within the last 3 years. Reviewers can work both in Russia and abroad. Co-authors cannot act as reviewers. Reviewers cannot be the scientific advisors of the degree appicant or employees of the department where the author works.

If the topic of the article is very narrow and/or the author declares a potential conflict of interest when reviewed by external experts, members of the editorial board may be involved in the review.

 

Principles of selecting reviewers and steps taken by the journal Editorial Board to ensure high quality of expertise

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” conducts regular work on attracting recognized experts in the corresponding subject area to work on the journal, as well as on the timely rotation of reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to work with the journal on the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief, scientific editor, members of the Editorial Board, as well as the authors.

The first review of new reviewers is evaluated according to the following algorithm:

  1. Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the issue raised in the study?
  2. Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
  3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
  4. Did the reviewer provide helpful comments on the language and structure of the article?
  5. Were the reviewer’s comments constructive?
  6. Did the reviewer present arguments using examples from the article to support his/her comments?
  7. Did the reviewer comment on the author's interpretation of the results?
  8. Quality of the review as a whole.

Each of the items can be assigned from 1 up to 5 points, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum score.

If the quality of the review is not satisfactory to the Editor-in-Chief, the cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.

The editors of the journal “Neophilology” have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews of all experts involved in the work with the journal according to the presented algorithm.

Mechanism for engaging reviewers to work on the journal

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” considers peer-review as one of the most important procedures in the work with the journal and values the experience and time of experts who are involved in reviewing.

Reviewers of the journal “Neophilology” are entitled to priority publication.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” does not share personal data of reviewers and personal data of authors.

Any manuscript is considered by the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” as a confidential document. The Editorial Board expects that reviewers will not share or discuss manuscripts with third parties without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers may involve third parties in the work on the review only with the consent of the Editor-in-Chief.

Responsibility of the reviewer

By agreeing to review manuscripts for the journal “Neophilology”, the reviewer agrees to follow the journal’s policy in evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, as well as in terms of reviewer behavior and ethical requirements.

The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of published materials in the journal “Neophilology”, as much as the editor, and therefore should review the manuscript only if they have enough experience in the field in question and enough time to thoroughly and comprehensively check the article.

The reviewer must inform the Editor-in-Chief of any conflict of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious). In case of doubts, the situation should be discussed with the Editor-in-Chief.

The reviewer is obliged to refuse to review if they:

– are a supervisor or subordinate of the author of the manuscript, as well as a holder of joint grants;

– do not plan to prepare a review, but only wants to familiarize with the text of the article;

– are preparing their own article on a similar topic for publication;

– review an article on a similar topic.

The reviewer is obliged to inform the editor about their intention to review the article, as well as to complete the work within the term specified by the editor. If it is impossible to conduct the review for a number of reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.

A reviewer may not use their status for personal gain or impose references to their work on authors.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWERS

For the reviewer’s convenience, the editors of “Neophilology” suggest using the Quick Review Form – it reflects the questions that the editor needs to answer in order to make a decision about the article.

The Editorial Board of the journal asks the reviewer to pay more attention to the “Commentary” section to help authors improve current and future papers.

Content and structure of the review

The editorial board of “Neophilology” received permission to use NEICON guidelines in the journal’s peer review policy.

10 criteria by which a manuscript should be evaluated:

  1. originality;
  2. logical rigor;
  3. statistical rigor;
  4. clarity and conciseness of writing style;
  5. theoretical significance;
  6. reliable results;
  7. relevance to current areas of research;
  8. replicability of results;
  9. coverage of the literature;
  10. application of the results.

In addition to the quick review form, the editorial board of the journal “Neophilology” recommends that reviewers adhere to the following structure of the review.

Comments for the editor

Conflict of Interest – describes an actual or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that could lead to a biased conclusion.

Confidential comments – this section is for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer’s final judgment about the fate of the manuscript, the reviewer’s assumptions, expressions of doubt about possible ethical violations, and recommendations and accompanying comments (e.g., the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). Anticipated decision – usually a brief conclusion about the fate of the manuscript.

Comments for authors

Introduction – this section describes the main conclusions and the value of the article for readers. Main comments – this section describes the relevance to the aims and scope of the journal, the level of validity, and ethical behavior.

Special comments – the reviewer provides an evaluation of the sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.

Recommendations to the author – the reviewer makes recommendations to the author to improve the quality of the manuscript and possibly future research.

Concluding comment – a brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.

MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION CRITERIA

Relevance to the subject area

No time should be wasted reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. The first thing to determine is whether the manuscript is relevant to the subject area of the scientific journal and the interests of its audience.  

Reasonableness

Does the study design, scientific methods, structure and content, and depth of analysis meet all the necessary requirements, does it not deviate from the principles of unbiased scientific research, and are the results of the study replicable?

Novelty

Did the research bring something new to the relevant subject area?  

Ethicality

Does the research meet the requirements of originality? No matter how great the perceived significance of a manuscript is, it cannot be accepted for publication in case of redundancy, presence of plagiarism, or violation of the basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, usefulness, and respect for human beings.

Evaluation of manuscript elements

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” suggests using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and presenting the most complete information about the article to the editor and the author.

Title

Does the title accurately correspond to the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract the readers’ attention?  

Abstract

Is the content of the manuscript adequately summarized in the abstract (abstract structured, aims, methods, results, and significance described)?

Are there discrepancies between the abstract and sections of the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?

Introduction

Is the introduction brief? Is the purpose of the study and the problem clearly defined? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the study based on the literature review? Does the author provide definitions of terms that appear in the manuscript?

Literature review

How coherent is the literature review?

Methods

Would another researcher be able to replicate the results of the study using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear?

Do the authors justify their choices when describing the study methods?

How is the research design presented?  

How does the data analysis help in accomplishing the purpose of the study?

Results  

Are the results clearly explained? Does the order in which the results are presented match the order in which the methods are described? Are the results justified and expected or unexpected? Are there results that are not preceded by an appropriate description in the “Methods” section? How accurate is the presentation of results?

Discussion

Is the discussion concise? If not, how can it be shortened?

Are the authors’ conclusions consistent with the results obtained in the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors analyze them appropriately? What is the potential contribution of the study to the field and to global science?

Conclusions  

Do the authors note limitations of the study? Are there additional limitations that should be noted? What are the authors’ views on these limitations? What are the authors' views on the direction of future research?

List of references  

Does the reference list follow the format of the journal? Are there any bibliographic errors in the reference list? Are the citations to the articles in the reference list in the body of the manuscript correct? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? International coverage of sources. Are there more references in the article than necessary? Are the cited references up to date?

Tables

If there are tables in the article, do they correctly describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Is the data presented in tables handled appropriately and make the information easier to understand rather than more complicated?

Figures

Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for the task at hand? Can the results be illustrated in other ways? Do figures and graphs reliably show important results? Do the figures and graphs need to be modified to present the results more accurately and clearly? Do the captions of figures and graphs allow the information to be understood without referring to the manuscript itself?

Conflict of interest disclosure

Is funding and conflict of interest information clearly stated?

 

CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING A MANUSCRIPT

The Editorial Board of “Neophilology” suggests using the following rationale for the reviewer’s final decision.

Accept the article for publication

The reviewer realizes that the article is ready for publication in the current submission. The article is justified, ethical, significant for the scientific community and complements already published works, the writing style is clear and concise.

Accept after minor revision

There are non-critical remarks to the article that need to be corrected. These may be poor style of the article, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently elaborated structure of the article, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the article. After making changes and re-evaluation, the article can be accepted for publication.

Accept after significant revision and review of the article

The article has serious flaws and errors affecting the reliability of the results obtained: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or refuted by the author’s own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. Such a decision often requires the collection of additional data from the author.

Reject

The paper does not meet the goals and objectives of the journal, has one or more unrecoverable flaws or serious ethical problems. The reviewer should give detailed comments, arguing their decision, as they can help the author to significantly improve the work.

Reject and offer the author to re-submit the article for reconsideration

The topic or research question posed is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods, hence the data obtained are not reliable either. This decision is also possible when the paper requires many revisions or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. Authors are encouraged to conduct the study with the recommended changes again and submit new results for consideration.

Review editing

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” expects reviews to be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. Personal attacks, insulting the author, and unfair criticism of any aspect of the research, language and style of the manuscript, etc. are prohibited.

The editorial board of the journal “Neophilology” tries to pass the reviews to the authors in their original form, but in some cases it may be necessary to change the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining the comments of several experts on the same issue or if there are confidential comments in the section of the review, which is intended for the author).

The editorial board of the journal “Neophilology” has the right to send the review for revision to the expert in case of a large number of errors or unacceptable tone of the review.

 

Accepting the manuscript for publication. The results of the review are discussed by the Editorial Board members before a final decision is made. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. Based on their recommendations and the reviewers’ judgments, the Editor-in-Chief may accept or reject the article, recommend revisions, or suggest redirecting it to another journal.

The final decision on the acceptance of the article and its publication in one of the journal’s issues is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the relevance of the topic and other factors.

The editorial office informs the author of the final decision.

At the author’s request, the editorial office provides a standard certificate of acceptance of the article for publication and its placement in one of the journal's issues.

 

出版周期

4 выпуска в год

 

开放式获取政策

Научно-теоретический журнал «Неофилология» предоставляет непосредственный открытый доступ (Open Access) к своему контенту, исходя из следующего принципа: свободный открытый доступ к результатам исследований способствует увеличению глобального обмена знаниями.

Журнал «Неофилология» поддерживает политику открытого доступа, которая соответствует определению Будапештской инициативы открытого доступа (BOAI) и означает, что опубликованные статьи доступны бесплатно в открытом доступе в сети Интернет, что позволяет всем пользователям читать, скачивать, копировать, распространять, распечатывать, искать или ссылаться на полные тексты этих статей, сканировать их для индексации, передавать в качестве данных для программного обеспечения или использовать их для любых других законных целей без финансовых, юридических или технических барьеров, за исключением тех, которые неотделимы от получения доступа к самому Интернету, не спрашивая предварительного разрешения у автора и издателя.

При этом пользователи имеют право использовать материалы в своих публикациях, но при условии, что будет сделана ссылка на публикацию в журнале.

 

Статьи этого журнала доступны всем желающим с момента публикации в соответствии с открытой лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0). Эта лицензия предоставляет полное использование и право на повторное использование всем, при условии, что произведение принадлежит оригинальным авторам.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

 

Borrowing and plagiarism

Only original works are acceptable for publication in journal “Neophilology”. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The journal “Neophilology” does not publish plagiarism in any forms – including works containing plagiarism of text, plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of data.

 

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” considers the following to be the forms plagiarism:

  • use (word for word citing) of any materials in any value without indicating the source;
  • use of images, pictures, photographs, tables, diagrams, schemes or any other forms of graphical information presentation without indicating the source;
  • use of images, pictures, photographs, tables, diagrams, schemes or any other forms of graphical information presentation published in scientific and popular issues without approving by copyright holder;
  • use of the materials without written permission, the authors or copyright holders of which don’t permit use of their materials without special approvement.

 

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” considers the following to be the forms of incorrect borrowing:

  • incorrect references (incomplete bibliographic description of the sources, which prevents their identification;
  • reference not to the first source of the borrowed text without clear indication of this fact (mistake in primary source determination);
  • absence of references from the text to the sources enumerated in the list below the article.

 

Manuscripts submitted to the journal for publication are subject to mandatory verification for plagiarism of the text through the “Antiplagiatˮ software.

If the Editorial Board has grounds for a more detailed review, additional tools may be used to find borrowings.

The identification of plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of data is carried out within the framework of scientific peer review, as well as after the publication of manuscripts – upon the fact that readers have submitted relevant statements.

In the case of the discovery of multiple incidents of content matching, the editorial staff acts in accordance with the rules of COPE, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts-new/what-do-if-you-suspect-plagiarism.

 

Preprint and Postprint Placement Policy

When submitting a manuscript to the Editorial Office, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in another scientific journal.

When quoting articles published in the journal “Neophilology”, the publisher asks you to make links (full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.

The Editorial Board accepts preprints for review, i.e. manuscripts posted on the author’s personal pages or on specialized platforms. We welcome the desire of the authors to receive a prompt response to their work before its publication in a peer-reviewed journal. At the same time, verification by the automated “Antiplagiat” system can cause certain difficulties. When submitting a manuscript to the editor, we recommend that you indicate that your work is a preprint, as well as provide a list of resources on which it is posted. A preprint is not considered a duplicate publication. The final decision on the publication of the preprint is made by the Editorial Board.

The editorial board of the journal “Neophilology” allows authors to independently archive manuscripts that have undergone the review stage, been accepted for publication, and have undergone editorial and publishing processing (proofread and typeset). To place this version of the manuscript, authors may use a personal website or blog; an institutional repository; a subject repository; direct contact with teachers or students, providing this version of the article for personal use. After the final version of the manuscript is published, the author is responsible for updating the publication record with a link to the published article. The posted text should not be modified based on the comments of the reviewer and editor. It is not advisable to replace or remove text from the posted version of the manuscript.

Glossary (according to the international database of SHERPA RoMEO)

A preprint is a draft of a manuscript or scientific article (abstracts of a conference report, dissertation, etc.), which are provided for the expert review procedure conducted by the Editorial Board of the journal. A preprint is a scientific publication that the author wants to familiarize interested persons and specialists with in order to discuss and/or clarify the results of the work, which is published before the publication of the article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

A postprint is a scientific article that has undergone an expert review procedure and is an officially published scientific material. The postprint includes both the author’s manuscript of a scientific publication and the publishing house’s editorial work – formatting and preparing the manuscript for publication.

 

Classifiers

Higher Attestation Commissions Fields of Study

5.9.1. Russian Literature and Literature of Peoples of Russian Federation

5.9.3. Theory of Literature

5.9.5. Russian Language. Languages of Peoples of Russia

5.9.6. Languages of Peoples of Foreign Countries

5.9.9. Media Communications and Journalism

5.10.1. Theory and History of Culture

 

Code of State Categories Scientific and Technical Information Classification

13.00.00. Culture. Cultural Studies

16.00.00. Linguistics

17.00.00. Literature. Literary Studies. Oral Folk Art

19.00.00. Mass Communication. Journalism. Mass Media

 

OECD Classification

5.08. Media and communication

5.09. Other social sciences

6.02. Languages and literature

 

ASJC Classification

  1. Language and Linguistics
  2. Literature and Literary Theory
  3. 3310. Linguistics and Language
  4. 3315. Communication
  5. 3316. Cultural Studies

 

Generative AI Usage Policy

“Neophilology” shares the view of the international publishing community regarding the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of scientific articles, as stated in the following documents: Chatbots, Generative AI and Scholarly Manuscripts (WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications); Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making.

Policy regarding authors

The use of generative AI and AI-powered tools in scientific writing

In the case of using AI systems in the preparation of an article, the author is required to specify in the abstract or in the accompanying note which specific systems were used, in what manner, and for what purpose.

The purpose of using AI

Authors may use generative AI and AI tools solely to enhance the readability and linguistic quality of their manuscripts. Such tools should be used under human supervision, and the results should be thoroughly reviewed and edited by the authors. It is important to understand that AI can generate text that seems authoritative but may contain inaccuracies, incomplete information, or bias.

Accountability and Information disclosure

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, reliability, and originality of their work. The use of AI tools must be disclosed in the manuscript, and this disclosure will be included in the published article to ensure transparency and build trust among all participants in the publication process.

Exclusion of AI from the list of authors

No AI tools can be listed as co-authors or used as references. Authorship implies responsibility and the execution of tasks that can only be performed by a human. Authors must ensure that their work is original, adheres to ethical standards, and does not infringe on the rights of third parties. The author is obliged to ensure accurate credit of all cited materials, including bibliographic references.

The use of AI in illustrations

Ban on images created or modified by artificial intelligence

The use of generative AI or AI tools to create, modify, or process images in manuscripts is prohibited. Adjustment of brightness, contrast, and color balance is only allowed if it does not distort the presented data.

Policy regarding reviewers

Privacy and the use of AI tools

Reviewed manuscripts are confidential documents, and uploading them or any part of them to artificial intelligence tools is prohibited, as it may violate the author's confidentiality and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to review comments, which may contain confidential information about the manuscript and its authors.

The use of generative AI to assist in scientific peer review is not permitted, as the review process requires critical thinking and independent assessment that go beyond the capabilities of AI. Reviewers bear full responsibility for the content of their reviews.

AI in editorial tools

“Neophilology” allows the use of safe artificial intelligence technologies for tasks such as manuscript completeness checks, plagiarism detection, and finding suitable reviewers, provided that privacy standards are adhered to.

Policy regarding Editors

Confidentiality of manuscripts

All manuscripts submitted for review to the journal "Neophilology" must remain confidential. Uploading them or any parts of them to artificial intelligence tools is prohibited, as it may violate the rights and confidentiality of the authors. Similarly, the use of generative AI to assist in editorial decision-making is not permitted.

The evaluation of manuscripts requires critical thinking and an objective approach, which can only be provided by human editors. Editors bear full responsibility for the editorial process, final decisions on manuscripts, and communicating these decisions to the authors.

 

Advertising policy

The journal’s policy is regulated by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Advertising” (https://www.consultant.ru/).

 “Neophilology” does not feature advertisements.

 

Sources of income

The founder and publisher of the journal is Derzhavin Tambov State University (33, Internationalnaya St., Tambov, 392000, Russian Federation.

Phone +7(4752)-72-34-40, e-mail: post@tsutmb.ru)

“Neophilology” is funded by the founder’s resources.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».