Linguistic Issues Journal (LIJ) publishes original works that have undergone a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring their eligibility for publication in accordance with the journal’s editorial and review policies. The journal is committed to providing its readership with high-quality, original research that holds significant scientific and scholarly value.

In pursuit of this objective, the journal adheres strictly to the principles of publication ethics to prevent any form of misconduct. It follows the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors endorsed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (accessible via: https://publicationethics.org).

Since publishing in Linguistic Issues requires compliance with the highest standards of ethical integrity, the process entails a set of obligations, responsibilities, and ethical commitments on all parties involved—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. This document provides the comprehensive framework of editorial, ethical, and publishing policies adopted by the journal to guide stakeholders. These policies are aligned with international best practices recommended by COPE and other globally recognized bodies in scholarly publishing. Their primary aim is to safeguard integrity, transparency, accountability, and fairness throughout the entire academic and publishing process.

1. Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors bear full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of their submitted work. Their obligations include:

• Originality and Plagiarism
  Submitted manuscripts must be entirely original, unpublished elsewhere (in whole or in part), and not under consideration by other journals. Plagiarism in all forms—including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without attribution, or failure to cite sources—is strictly prohibited. Authors must ensure accurate referencing of all citations and give due credit to the intellectual contributions of others.
• Content Responsibility
  Authors remain solely accountable for the content of their articles, even after publication.
• Authorship Criteria
  Only individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, or drafting of the work should be listed as authors. Contributors offering ancillary support (e.g., technical assistance, translation, or data collection) should be acknowledged separately. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors approve the final manuscript and consent to its submission.
• Data Integrity and Transparency
  Findings must be reported accurately, without fabrication or manipulation. Where possible, primary data should be made available in open repositories to promote transparency, verifiability, and reusability.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure
  Authors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal interests that could influence the interpretation of their results.
• Ethical Considerations in Research
  For studies involving human participants, evidence of informed consent and institutional ethics approval must be provided. For research involving animals, international guidelines on animal care and use must be strictly observed.
• Corrections or Retractions
  If authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies that affect their findings, whether during review or after publication, they are required to notify the editor immediately and cooperate in publishing a correction or retraction.

2. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a critical role in ensuring publication quality. Their responsibilities include:

• Confidentiality
  Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be shared.
• Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
  Reviews must be impartial, respectful, and supported by academic reasoning, avoiding bias or offensive language.
• Timeliness
  Reviewers must adhere to agreed deadlines or notify the editor if unable to meet them.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure
  Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts that could compromise their impartiality.
• Misconduct Notification
  Reviewers should alert the editor if they detect plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical breaches.

3. Publisher’s Responsibilities

The publisher supports the editorial board by:

• Ensuring permanent access to published content through digital archiving services such as LOCKSS and CLOCKSS.
• Providing resources necessary for professional editorial management.
• Safeguarding the editorial team’s independence from internal or external influence.
• Handling complaints and appeals transparently, in line with COPE standards.

4. Editors Responsibilities

Editors oversee the integrity of the editorial process and must:

• Editorial Independence
  Decisions to accept or reject manuscripts must be based solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance, independent of personal, institutional, or geographical biases.
• Confidentiality
  Editors must maintain strict confidentiality of all submissions and may share them only with relevant authors, reviewers, or editorial board members. Uploading manuscripts to generative AI tools is strictly prohibited to protect confidentiality.
• Conflict of Interest Management
  Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have direct or indirect interests; in such cases, another editor will be assigned.
• Fair Review Process
  Editors must appoint qualified reviewers free from conflicts of interest and ensure that reviews are conducted objectively under a double-blind system.
• Handling Misconduct
  Editors are responsible for investigating allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations in accordance with COPE guidelines and taking necessary actions, including retractions or corrections.

In addition, the role of editors includes adherence to the following best practices:

• Editors must strive to meet the needs of readers and authors and ensure high quality for the journal.
• They should be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as necessary.
• Diligently seeking feedback from authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members to improve the journal's performance.
• Encouraging scientific research and supporting initiatives to combat research misconduct and publishing malpractice.
• They should establish effective procedures to ensure the quality of published material and maintain the integrity of the academic record.
• Supporting freedom of expression without influencing intellectual and ethical standards is necessary.
• Supporting educational initiatives on publication ethics and assessing the impact of journal policies on author and reviewer behavior, and adjusting policies as needed.
• Ensuring that any press releases accurately reflect the scientific paper's message and place it in the proper context.

Editors must also comprehensively guide new editorial board members regarding expected roles and responsibilities. They should inform current members about new policies and developments in the field, including a set of important steps and guidelines, such as:

• Providing clear and detailed guidance to editorial board members on expected tasks and responsibilities.
• Selecting editorial board members with the appropriate competence and qualifications.
• Reviewing submitted papers for publication, ensuring their quality and suitability for the journal's objectives.
• Establishing policies that govern requests submitted by editorial board members.
• Attracting the best authors and research and actively encouraging the submission of drafts.
• Conducting periodic reviews of the editorial board composition to ensure the necessary diversity and expertise.
• Appointing committees to carry out arbitration and write editorials.
• Attending and actively participating in editorial board meetings.
• Conducting periodic surveys of editorial board members to gather their feedback and suggestions on journal management and future policies.

5.Relationship with Authors

Decisions by editors to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the importance, validity, clarity, and relevance of the scientific paper to the journal's scope.

Editors should not change decisions to accept scientific papers unless fundamental problems are identified in the submitted manuscripts.

New editors should not overturn decisions to publish scientific papers made by the previous editor unless fundamental problems are identified.

Descriptions of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be prepared to justify any significant departures from the stated processes.

Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.

Editors should provide guidelines for authors on what is expected of them, and these guidelines should be regularly updated with clear mention or inclusion of links.

Editors should provide guidance on authorship standards and who should be included as contributors according to relevant field standards.

As for best practices, they include:

• Regularly reviewing author guidelines and providing links to relevant guidelines.
• Disclosing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are discovered post-publication.
• Ensuring appropriate selection of reviewers for submission requests and ensuring no conflicting interests influence their decisions.
• Respecting requests from authors to exclude specific reviewers for their submissions if these requests are logical and practical.
• Publishing details on how to address inappropriate behavior cases.
• Publishing submission and acceptance deadlines for scientific papers to the public.

6.Relationship with Readers

Readers' awareness of the funding source for research or other scientific work, as well as the role of funders in research and dissemination, is considered essential.

Best practices in this regard include:

• Ensuring that all reports and reviews published on research have been reviewed by qualified reviewers, including statistical review, to ensure accuracy and objectivity.
• Clearly identifying sections not subject to peer review, contributing to the transparency of the publishing process.
• Adopting editing processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity in preparing research reports, using appropriate guidelines and reference lists.
• Considering the establishment of a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure of non-research paper sources.
• Adopting authorship or contribution systems that promote good practices and prevent misconduct, such as accurately clarifying contributor lists.
• Informing readers of the steps taken to ensure that contributions from journal staff or editorial board members receive objective and neutral evaluations.

7.Relationship with Reviewers

• Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on what is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted materials confidentially, and these guidelines should be regularly updated and clearly referenced or linked to.

• Editors should request reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before accepting to arbitrate the submitted author's work for publication.

• Editors should have systems in place to protect the identity of reviewers unless an open review system is used, which is announced to authors and reviewers.

Best practices in this regard include:

• Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical issues, potential research misconduct, and plagiarism.

• Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submitted works for publication and noting any duplicate publication.

• Providing means for reviewers to verify relevant publications (such as links to used references).

• Sending reviewers' comments in full to authors unless they contain abusive or defamatory remarks.

• Thanking reviewers for their contributions to the journal.

• Monitoring reviewers' performance and taking actions to ensure the quality of arbitration.

• Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating it based on their performance.

• Not employing reviewers who conduct inappropriate or low-quality arbitration.

• Ensuring that the reviewer database reflects a wide diversity and adding new reviewers as needed.

• Using a variety of sources to identify potential reviewers.

• Following the flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in cases of doubts about reviewer misconduct.

8.Relationship with the Publisher

The relationship between editors and the Research Center for Arabic Language Development, as the actual publisher of the journal represented by the Linguistic Research Unit and Arabic Language Issues in Algeria, is based on the principle of the editorial independence.

Editors make decisions regarding the publication of scientific research based on its quality and suitability for the journal's content, without any intervention from the publisher.

The relationship between editors and the publisher is regulated through legal texts that specify the details of this relationship, in compliance with the ethical principles of publication set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

As for best practices for editors in this regard, they include:

• Maintaining regular and constructive communication with the publisher.

• Ensuring that the peer review process is fair, transparent, and timely.

• Providing systems that maintain the confidentiality of articles submitted for arbitration.

9.Dealing with the Peer Review Process

Editors aim to ensure fairness and transparency in the peer review process within the journal. The journal adopts a rigorous approach in dealing with materials submitted for arbitration, ensuring the confidentiality of these materials. (For more information, please refer to the Peer review Policy document).

Best practices for editors in this aspect include:

• Developing peer review methods that suit the journal and the research community it serves.

• Monitoring developments and research in the field of peer review.

• Providing appropriate training for all participants in the editing process on peer review guidelines and recommendations.

• Regularly reviewing practices related to peer review to update and improve them.

• Adopting effective mechanisms for resolving disputes that cannot be resolved internally.

• Referring to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in case of ethical concerns.

10.Dealing with Potential Unethical Behavior Cases

It is essential for editors to act decisively and judiciously when suspicions arise regarding unethical behavior or allegations in this regard. This duty includes reviewing scholarly papers, whether published or not, taking into account the raised concerns. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about unethical behavior but should instead address these issues and determine appropriate actions according to ethical principles.

Best practices in this regard involve editors following the established flowcharts endorsed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when necessary. In cases where there are suspicions of unethical behavior, editors should seek clarification from the suspected parties. If responses are unsatisfactory, they should request an investigation by the relevant authority, whether through the employer, the relevant institution, a regulatory body, or an organization dedicated to research integrity.

11.Quality Assurance and Personal Data Protection

11.1. Quality Assurance

Editors must take all necessary steps to ensure the quality of published content, before, during, and even after the editing process, considering the specificity of each field or section, its objectives, and its standards. This includes linguistic editing of manuscripts before publication, verifying the accuracy of data included in submitted scientific works, and ensuring compliance with established ethical standards.

Among the best practices followed by editors in this regard are linguistic editing of manuscripts before publication, verifying the accuracy of data included in submitted scientific works, and ensuring compliance with established ethical standards.

11.2. Personal Data Protection

Protecting privacy and confidentiality rights is guaranteed for every author, within the limits agreed upon in the privacy policy. Editors must ensure the confidentiality of personal data when dealing with materials submitted for publication by authors, including protecting the data of individuals obtained during research or professional interactions, and refraining from publishing them without written consent from the individuals concerned.

Recommended best practices for editors in this regard include publishing policies related to the use of personal data and explaining them clearly to authors, distinguishing between consent to participate in research and consent to publish personal data or images, and handling private and personal data related to authors with confidentiality, integrity, and professionalism.

12.Encouraging Ethical Research

Editorial teams must encourage serious research that aligns with established ethical standards in the academic community. Editors should ensure that submitted research aligns with global ethical standards and adheres to the rules and principles of academic research.

This includes verifying the conformity of research submitted for publication with global ethical standards and adherence to the principles of academic research.

Editors should ensure that all research has obtained approval from relevant regulatory bodies, such as research ethics committees or institutional review boards if applicable. However, editors should be aware that approval does not necessarily indicate the ethicality of the research.

Recommended best practices for editors in this regard include creating a consultative body to deal with emerging ethical issues in the journal, providing advice and assistance in handling special cases, reviewing and updating journal policies regularly, seeking clarifications from authors regarding the ethical aspects of research submitted for publication, especially regarding informed consent from research participants, and when necessary, requesting evidence confirming the ethical approval of the research.

13.Intellectual Property

Issues of intellectual property are vital aspects of the scientific publishing process, and editors must be fully aware of them and follow best practices in dealing with them. Violations of intellectual property rights pose a serious threat to research and publishing integrity, making collaboration with publishers necessary to address any potential violations.

Using systems to detect plagiarism and supporting authors affected by copyright infringements are vital measures. Editors should remain prepared to cooperate with publishers to combat these practices, whether through requesting the withdrawal of infringing materials or demanding their removal from websites, reflecting their commitment to protecting authors' rights.

14.Ensuring Academic Record Integrity

Editors must correct errors and inaccurate or misleading data in the academic record as soon as they are discovered, prioritizing this task. They should also follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding the retraction of scientific documents when necessary.

Among the best practices recommended for editors are taking measures to combat hidden and duplicate publishing, ensuring the archival of published materials securely through the use of permanent online repositories, verifying the academic record in cases of suspected data manipulation or distortion, and implementing systems that allow authors to make scientific papers freely available.

15.Conflict of Interest

Editors must handle scientific papers submitted for publication professionally, including verifying the absence of conflicts of interest among the parties involved in the publishing process (editor-reviewer-author) and disclosing any suspected cases for appropriate action. (For more information, please refer to the Conflict of Interest document).

Recommended best practices in this regard include including clear provisions in the journal's arbitration or publication policy for dealing with scientific materials submitted by editors or reviewers working for the journal, adopting the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) model and procedures when editors deal with conflict of interest cases.

16.Encouraging Discussion

Open and constructive scientific discussion is considered essential in the research and publication process, as it contributes to the advancement of knowledge and progress in the scientific field. Therefore, editors should actively encourage discussion in their journals and welcome criticism with an open and constructive spirit.

Additionally, editors should provide authors who face criticisms with the opportunity to respond, thereby fostering scientific interaction and the exchange of opinions. They should also not exclude studies that yield negative results, but rather encourage balanced and comprehensive publication of research, including those that may contradict previously published research.

17.Dealing with Complaints

Editors should effectively and promptly address complaints, ensuring the provision of a mechanism that allows complainants to submit additional complaints if they are not satisfied with the initial response. This mechanism should be clearly outlined in the journal's policies. (For more information, please see the complaint submission document)

Furthermore, editors should follow the specific procedures outlined in COPE's approved flowcharts for handling complaints.

18.Authorship and Contribution

In the context of academic publishing, authorship establishes accountability for individuals responsible for the content of published works, with recognition of responsibility for the content. Providing an accurate account of contributing events is a guiding concept for authorship establishment. Authorship standards apply to all forms of intellectual activity, whether in printed or digital editions of texts, data, or images. Additionally, authorship entails accountability and responsibility for published works, as recognized authors are accountable for the intellectual contributions they have made.

Authors who significantly contribute to the study upon which the article is based should be included as authors, such as formulating the research question, designing the study, analyzing the data, interpreting the results, and writing the description.

Authors should all agree on the final version of the manuscript.

It is preferable for all authors to be fully informed about all aspects of the work. However, in modern research processes, research may be conducted in specialized teams, rendering some authors unfamiliar with all study details.

Contributions of some authors may be limited to specific areas of the study, and not every author may participate in every part of the study.

The author list should specify the sequence of authors' names, as failing to disclose authorship assignment methods may lead to misunderstandings of contributions and agreements. Any changes in authorship composition or deletions of authors must be supported and accepted by all original authors before publication.

19.Data Sharing and Reproducibility

The journal adopts a data-sharing policy in line with the guidelines set forth by the AERA Council and its own Code of Conduct.

Authors are expected to regularly share data and relevant documents to enable verification of results and other analyses by other researchers. This includes providing data after project completion or publication unless intellectual property agreements prevent it or in cases where sharing data is impractical.

Authors must take necessary steps to protect the confidentiality of data and the identities of non-author participants in research when sharing data. In cases where future access to data is required, authors should impose appropriate restrictions to ensure participant privacy.

Authors are expected to consider data sharing an integral part of the publication plan whenever data sharing is feasible. This reflects their commitment to enhancing transparency and integrity in research and enabling other researchers to explore results and analyses.

20.Ethical Oversight Mechanisms Policy

We encourage journal editors to adhere to COPE's Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and to direct reviewers to the relevant ethical guidelines as needed. Any claims of misconduct will be investigated according to best practice guidelines approved by COPE to the fullest extent possible. In cases of potential violations of publishing ethics, journal editors and staff are encouraged to notify their journal's designated contact as soon as possible. Journal staff are trained in how to follow up on investigations into allegations of unethical behavior, and legal consultation will be sought when necessary.

21.Post-Publication Discussion and Correction

In some special and exceptional cases, the journal management may resort to one of the procedures related to updating the scientific content of the journal based on new data that necessitates the journal to make this decision: either by correction or final withdrawal and deletion of content in some rare cases.

Despite the significant efforts researchers put into preparing their research and the efforts made by the editorial board in processing scientific works and following up on the peer review and publication procedures, the possibility of withdrawing, deleting, or modifying some published or accepted research remains possible and a decision that may be resorted to, provided that strict guidelines are followed to maintain the credibility and trust in the journal and its preservation system. (For more information, please refer to the Correction and Withdrawal Policy document.)

22.Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and AI-Assisted Technologies

To preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and protect authors’ intellectual property rights, editors are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts, in whole or in part, into generative AI platforms. Furthermore, the role of AI in editorial workflows must remain limited. Generative AI tools cannot be relied upon to conduct evaluations or to make editorial decisions; such responsibilities must remain under direct human oversight to ensure integrity, accountability, and adherence to established ethical standards in scholarly publishing. (For more information, please refer to the GenAI Use Policy.)

 

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

 Other languages

L’éthique de l’édition ( Publishing ethics in FRENCH )

أخلاقيات النشر (Publishing ethics in ARABIC)