Aim and Scope

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 goals of the journal are 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 most important tasks of the journal are 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.

Section Policies

PARADIGMS OF LANGUAGES AND MODERN LINGUISTICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LITERATURE MAP IN PERSONS, FACTS, EVENTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MODERN MEDIA TEXT AND INTERNET DISCOURSE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION: NATIONAL IDENTITY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

IDEAS OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times a year

Open Access Policy

The journal “Neophilology” provides direct open access to its content based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to increasing global knowledge sharing.

“Neophilology” supports the Open Access Policy which is in line with the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration (BOAI) and means that published articles are openly available on the Internet for free, allowing all users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, scan them for indexing, transfer them as data for software, or use them for any other legitimate purpose without financial, legal or technical barriers, except those that are inseparable from access to the Internet itself, without asking prior authorization from the author and publisher.

At the same time, users have the right to use the materials in their publications, provided that a reference to the journal publication is made.

The articles of this journal are available to everyone from the moment of publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (CC BY 4.0). This license grants full use and the right to reproduce to everyone, provided that the work is attributed to the original authors.

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

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

Archiving

• The archive of the journal “Neophilology” is available after publication in:

  • national Scientific Electronic Library (eLibrary) within the bibliographic database “Russian Science Citation Index” (RSCI) – free of charge for all readers, in full-text version. Direct link of the journal archive: https://elibrary.ru/contents.asp?titleid=64820. In the Scientific Electronic Library you can perform an advanced search for journal articles (by keywords, author, title). The link to the full text of the article is indicated on the page of the article in the Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARY.ru;
  • scientific electronic library “CyberLeninka”, built on the paradigm of Open Science – free of charge for all readers, in full-text version https://cyberleninka.ru/journal/n/neofilologiya?i=1141666;
  • Full texts of articles are stored on this site in the “Archives” section; they can be accessed via https://neophilology.elpub.ru/jour/issue/archive/;
  • Printed copies of the journal issues are transferred for permanent storage to the Russian State Library (RSL) and other leading libraries of the Russian Federation.

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.

Publishing Ethics

The policy was discussed, amended and approved
at the Editorial Board meeting of the journal “Neophilology”
Mar. 6 2025

The journal “Neophilology” is committed to encouraging responsible publication practices honoring the generally accepted ethical principles. The Editorial Board of “Neophilology” adheres to the policies promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Journal publisher is a member of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP) and supports the ASEP Declaration on Ethical Principles for Scientific Publications. Compliance with publication ethics ensures the integrity of scientific publishing and confidence in published articles. Therefore, “Neophilology” expects all authors to adhere to ethical requirements in the preparation of their manuscript.

AUTHORSHIP, AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authorship

The journal “Neophilology” adheres to the following authorship criteria (developed and described in the ICMJE recommendations):

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published; and
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the “Acknowledgments” section.

Contribution of authors and non-authors

The “Acknowledgments” section may mention people who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship, for example: who supported the study, acted as a mentor, assisted with data collection, coordinated the study, etc.

In order to correctly determine the contribution, the authors of “Neophilology” can use CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy recommended by COPE

Accountability

It is the editors of the journal “Neophilology” who are accountable for adhering to the standards of authorship and author’s contribution.

The authors are obliged to provide transparent and correct information about the authors of the article and persons who made a significant contribution to the preparation of the article.

If a manuscript is submitted to the journal “Neophilology” by the Editor-in-Chief, scientific editor, member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Council, the manuscript is reviewed only by external experts.

Authorship statement

By submitting an article signed by all declared authors to the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” they guarantee that:

• each author meets the criteria for authorship set out in the ethical policy of the journal “Neophilology”;
• all persons who participated in the work on the study but are not authors are listed in the “Acknowledgements” section;
• each author's contribution is described. This information will be published in “Neophilology”;
• the authors take responsibility for the correctness of the information provided.

Upon receipt of the article, the editor checks the availability of information about the authors and all necessary documents. In the absence of signatures of all authors (in the pdf-file of the article), the article is not accepted for consideration.

Disputes

In case of authorship disputes, the work with the article is terminated regardless of the stage (consideration, peer review, editing or preparation for printing) it is at.

All co-authors are informed about the authorship dispute by e-mail.

The editor of the journal “Neophilology” has the right to specify the exact period within which the authors can provide clarification on the requested issues. After the expiration of this deadline, the article is withdrawn from publication with the corresponding explanation.

If a dispute arises with respect to a published article, the editor of “Neophilology” publishes a correction, refutation, or withdrawal of the article, indicating the reason for the changes in the published document.

If it is necessary to add or remove a co-author before or after publication, the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” adheres to COPE guidelines: Changes in authorship. Adoption of extra author – before publication, Changes in authorship: Removal of author – before publication.

To prevent manipulation of co-authorship, the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” uses COPE Flowchart and pays attention to the following when working with the article:

• it is indicated that the study was funded by an organization whose authors are not on the general list. This requires a more thorough verification of the contribution of all authors and, if necessary, requesting necessary explanations from the responsible author.
• the list of authors includes scientists from another scientific field. This may indicate guest authorship.
• listing a person in the “Acknowledgments” section without indicating a specific contribution.
• a very long or very short list of authors that is atypical for the scientific field or article type.
• an incomplete description of the authors’ contributions: for example, no information about who prepared the manuscript draft or processed the data.
• “Antiplagiat” check shows that there are borrowings from the dissertation work, the author of which is not listed in the list of authors.
• articles on similar topics were published by other teams of authors.
• the list of authors suddenly changes at the stage of article publication without prior discussion with the Editorial Board of the journal.
• the author has a very large number of publications, although their position does not imply such publication activity.
• the author responsible for correspondence cannot respond to reviewers’ comments.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” expects that organizations affiliated with the author will be willing to participate in the investigation of authorship disputes.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” is attentive to complaints about the behavior of editors and reviewers, which may concern such issues as breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information obtained during the peer review process. Authors may also disagree with decisions regarding the expression of doubts on certain articles or complain about violations of editorial processes.

All complaints can be emailed to ilina@tsutmb.ru, and will be dealt with in a general manner. The grievance procedure does not take more than 7 days. The person who sent the complaint will be informed about the decision taken, as well as the measures to be taken and the timeframe for their implementation.

To prevent the publication of articles in which researchers have engaged in misconduct, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data fabrication, the Editorial Board may contact the ASEP Ethics Council at ethics@rasep.ru

The Editorial Board relies on the COPE guideline in each of the following cases when dealing with complaints:

• handling post-publication critiques
• handling post-publication rebuttals
• peer-review-manipulation-suspected-after-publication
• image manipulation in a published article
• fabricated data in a published article

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

WAME defines conflict of interests as a condition in which people have conflicting or competing interests that can influence editorial decision making as well as the interpretation of data in an article. Conflicts of interests can be potential or recognized as well as actual. Personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors may affect objectivity.

Conflicts of interests may cover the following areas:

• financial: this conflict arises when a participant of the publication process has received or expects to receive money, gifts, or favors that may affect the work related to a particular publication: payment for research, consulting and public speaking royalties, etc.
• personal relationships: this conflict arises in the case of personal relationships with family, friends, competitors, former colleagues.
• political and religious beliefs: adherence to same religion, political party can influence the outcome of an article analyzing these issues.
• institutional affiliation: this conflict arises when someone involved in the publication process is directly connected to an organization that has an interest in the publication.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” may ask the authors additional questions or request additional information if necessary.

Conflict of interests may concern authors, reviewers and editors.

The following policy terms are based on ICMJE recommendations.

Responsibilities of authors in disclosing conflict of interests

When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format they are responsible for disclosing all relationships and activities that might bias or be seen to bias their work.

The author must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interests to the editor by including information about the conflict of interests in the respective section of the article.

If there is no conflict of interests, the author must also disclose it. Example of wording: “The author declares no relevant conflict of interests”.

Responsibilities of reviewers in disclosing conflict of interests

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflict of interests that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.

Responsibilities of editors when disclosing a conflict of interests

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have relationships or conflict of interests that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Editorial employees should not use information obtained while working with manuscripts for personal purposes.

Articles by the Editor-in-Chief, scientific editor, and members of the Editorial Board should clearly state the affiliation with the journal “Neophilology”.

If an undisclosed conflict of interests is found in an unpublished article, the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” will act according to COPE guidelines.

If an undisclosed conflict of interests is found in a published article, the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” will act according to COPE guidelines.

DATA REUSE AND REPLICABILITY

This section of the policy has been developed based on COPE recommendations for handling data.

Authors are encouraged to provide access to the research data that substantiate the content of their publications but it is not mandatory. Authors’ consent to provide access to research data does not influence the decision to publish.

Definition of research data

Research data includes any factual material recorded in any medium used in the process of obtaining research results, whether in digital or non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This policy applies to research data that may be required to validate research findings in articles published by “Neophilology”. Research data includes information obtained directly by the authors (“primary data”) as well as data from other sources analyzed by the authors during the course of the study (“secondary data”).

Definition of exemptions

Exempt data may be shared in the following ways: posted in restricted-access research data repositories; pre-anonymized. The author may also make publicly available only the metadata of the research data and/or a description of how to access it upon request from other scientists.

Data archiving

The preferred way to share data is through the use of data repositories (https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/).

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” welcomes access to research data under Creative Commons licenses. The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” does not insist on the mandatory use of public licenses when data are hosted in third-party repositories. The publisher of “Neophilology” does not claim ownership of the research data provided by the author along with the article.

Letters of inquiry about compliance with this policy may be addressed to the Executive Secretary of “Neophilology” ilina@tsutmb.ru.

ETHICAL OVERSIGHT

“Neophilology” shares COPE’s view that publication ethics includes not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research, but also ethical behavior towards research subjects. This category includes vulnerable population groups, laboratory animals, human subjects (in the case of relevant research), confidential data and business/marketing practices.

Vulnerable population groups

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” supports COPE’s statement on the publication of research involving vulnerable population groups.

Authors of articles should obtain informed consent for publication from persons involved in the research and notify the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology”.

Handling sensitive data

The right to privacy of individuals or organizations involved in the research is of paramount importance and should not be violated without their informed consent. The authors must take all necessary precautions to protect information about research participants. If necessary, the authors must take measures to minimize any potential physical and psychological harm to research participants.

POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSIONS AND CHANGES TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES

In some cases, it may be necessary to make changes to an article that has already been published. The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” supports the practice of making changes to published materials and, in case of such necessity, acts in accordance with COPE recommendations.

Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notification, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can be informed of any necessary changes. The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” uses Expression of Doubt, Correction or Retraction of an article. The purpose of this practice is to ensure the integrity of scholarly materials.

All Corrections, Expressions of Doubt and Retractions are publicly available.

What should authors do when they find an error in their article?

Authors may discover a technical or semantic error after the article has been published. In such a case, authors should notify the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” as soon as possible, especially in case of errors that may affect the interpretation of the results or cast doubt on the reliability of the information. The author responsible for correspondence is responsible for reaching an agreement in the author's team on further interaction with the Editorial Board.

If you believe a published article needs to be modified, please contact us via email ilina@tsutmb.ru

Algorithm for making modifications to an article

Correction

Corrections are made to an article when it is necessary to correct an error or add missing information that does not affect the integrity and scientific significance of the article.

Corrections can be made, for example, in the figure caption, information on research funding can be added, or information on conflict of interests can be clarified.

If such changes are made, a separate announcement of the correction is published. The general algorithm of actions is as follows:

• the correction is made to the original version of the article;
• the Crossmark record is updated;
• a description of the change is entered in the “Abstract” field of the original version of the article;
• a message about the correction is published, which contains information about the original version of the article, authors’ names, description of the essence of the correction, as well as references to it.

Messages about corrections of spelling errors, typos, and other minor changes are not published separately. The site informs that corrections were made to the article (without detailing).

Retraction

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” decides to retract an article in the following cases:

• when there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable for a number of reasons:there are serious errors in the calculations, the data is fabricated, image manipulation has taken place;
• plagiarism has been found in the article;
• the results have already been published earlier in other journals and the author has not justified the necessity of re-publication and has not warned the editor about it;
• the article contains materials and data that have not been authorized for use;
• copyright has been violated or another serious legal issue has occurred (e.g., breach of confidentiality);
• research ethics have been violated;
• the peer review process has been compromised;
• the author failed to disclose a conflict of interests that, in the opinion of the editor, may have influenced the reviewer’s or editor’s decision to publish the article.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” acts according to the following algorithm when an article needs to be retracted:

• investigate and make sure that retraction is necessary;
• prepare a report on the retraction: include “Retracted Article” in the title along with the title of the article, describe the reason for the retraction, indicate who initiated the retraction, and provide a link to the retracted article;
• publish an announcement about the retraction;
• replace the original version of the retracted article, noting in the pdf-file that the article is retracted;
• report the retraction to the databases;
• transfer information about the article retraction to the Retracted Articles Database.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” deals with retracted articles according to COPE regulations.

Expression of doubt

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” reports expressions of doubt in the following cases:

• serious concerns have been raised about a published article, but through investigation it has not been possible to prove anything, or for some reason an investigation will not be carried out or cannot be completed for a long time. Readers should be notified as soon as possible when this occurs.

Once the investigation has been completed, the article may be amended or retracted.

Removal of an article

Articles from the journal “Neophilology” will be removed only in extreme cases when it is not possible to follow the protocol of correcting, retracting the article or expressing doubts.

An article may be removed in the following cases:

• if the distribution of the article could pose a serious risk;
• if the article contains content that violates a research participant’s right to privacy;
• if the article violates rights;
• if the article is subject to removal by court order.

If an article is removed, all materials are removed from the journal’s website, requests are sent to databases to remove the full text and post a message about the article’s removal.

UPDATES AND POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSIONS OF ARTICLES

Supplements to the published article

The author may need to supplement the article some time after its publication. In this case, the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” can publish a supplement to the article. Supplements to articles are necessarily checked by the editors of the journal and may be sent for peer review.

When the supplement is published, the file with the original version of the article is updated, and the current issue of the journal additionally includes a notice about the supplement to the article, including information about the article, its authors, the essence of the changes made and a link to the article.

Commentary to a published article

Commentaries are short pieces that may express an opinion or observation about a published article. Commentaries are sent to the reviewers and authors of the article so that they have an opportunity to prepare a response to the commentary.

The authors’ comment is also sent to the reviewer. The author of the comment will have an opportunity to reply to the authors again, after which correspondence between the author of the comment and the authors of the article may continue privately.

The decision to publish comments is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Neophilology”. Comment, replies and remarks are linked to the original version of the article to which they refer.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE JOURNAL: EDITORIAL BOARD, EDITORS, PUBLISHER, FOUNDER

Principles for forming an Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” is guided by COPE principles  when forming the Editorial Board.

Potential members of the Editorial Board can be recommended to the Editor-in-Chief by current members of the Editorial Board, reviewers and authors.

Editors who wish to participate in the work with the journal as a member of the editorial board can send an application to the Editor-in-Chief.

All potential Editorial Board members should be prepared to disclose to the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” all potential and actual conflicts of interests (e.g., any scholarly journal and book publishing activities, membership on editorial boards of other journals, and any conflicts of interests that may arise after their appointment).

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board member:

• publication of one article per year to support the journal;
• peer review of incoming manuscripts according to their specialization and in the absence of external reviewers. Each member of the Editorial Board receives no more than 2 manuscripts per year for review. Peer review should be conducted in accordance with the approved Policy of peer review of the journal “Neophilology”.
• selection of reviewers for incoming articles at the request of the executive secretary.
• making decisions on the possibility of publishing an article after all rounds of peer review. Decisions are passed to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on the possibility of publication.
• inviting authors and reviewers to cooperate with the journal.

Editorial Board member may be demoted (formalized by the university order) for the following reasons:

• violation of publication ethics: concealment of conflict of interests or information, use of status for personal purposes;
• non-fulfillment of assigned duties within a year without a valid reason and without agreement with the Editor-in-Chief;
• at the request of a member of the Editorial Board.

Privileges of an Editorial Board Member

• articles by members of the Editorial Board of the journal “Neophilology” are considered on a priority basis;
• information about a member of the Editorial Board is placed on the website of the journal “Neophilology” with the necessary links to profiles in databases, affiliations and other necessary data.

The possibility of participation of potential candidates for the role of a member of the Editorial Board is considered at regular meetings of the Editorial Board.

The final decision on the inclusion of a potential candidate in the editorial board is made by the Editor-in-Chief and is fixed by the University’s decree.

Editor’s responsibility

The Editor of the scientific journal “Neophilology” is personally and independently responsible for making the decision to publish the article. The Editor-in-Chief bears full responsibility for the decision to publish articles, based on the significance and scientific value of the work for researchers and readers. The editor may discuss the article and the reviewer’s comments with other editors and reviewers, provided that these discussions are justified and legitimate, without using the material discussed for personal gain.

The editor of the journal “Neophilology” is obliged to evaluate the content of the manuscript regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.

The editor of the journal “Neophilology” must ensure confidentiality and not disclose information about the manuscript to third parties (except for other editors of the journal, reviewers, publisher and founder).

The editor of the journal “Neophilology” is obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief about all conflict situations, as well as about the detection of critical errors or accusations of authors or reviewers in violation of publication ethics, received by the journal, in order to take the necessary actions in such cases: making changes, publishing rebuttals, retracting the article, expressing doubts.

The editor of the journal “Neophilology” takes part in the investigation of any ethical violations concerning manuscripts under review and published articles, and makes every effort to resolve conflicts as soon as possible. If necessary, the editor of “Neophilology” will work with the author’s organization to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

Publisher’s responsibility

The publisher of the journal “Neophilology” is responsible for compliance with all current guidelines and requirements to maintain the integrity of scientific materials published in the journal.

The publisher of the journal “Neophilology” does not interfere with the editorial processes. However, if necessary and at the request of the editors the publisher can take part in the investigation of violations of publication ethics, as well as send official requests on their behalf to scientific and educational organizations, and other publishers.

The publisher of the journal “Neophilology” is obliged to implement industry standards in the work of the publishing house in order to improve the ethical component of the journal.

The publisher of the journal “Neophilology” is obliged to provide comprehensive legal support to the Editorial Board of the journal if necessary.

Founder’s responsibility

The founder of the journal “Neophilology” adheres to the principle of editorial independence: the university rector and staff do not interfere with the editorial process.

The founder of the journal “Neophilology” can recommend potential members of the Editorial Board, reviewers and authors, but the final decision on the possibility of cooperation with them is made only by the Editor-in-Chief.

The founder of “Neophilology” supports the need to ensure geographic and gender diversity among Editorial Board members, reviewers and authors.

The founder of the journal “Neophilology” does not put financial and political gain above the quality of the journal. The editors of “Neophilology” decide on the publication of manuscripts based on their quality and interest to the target audience of the journal.

The founder of the journal “Neophilology” does not interfere in the editorial processes. However, if necessary and at the request of the editors the founder can take part in the investigation of violations of publication ethics, as well as send official requests on its behalf to scientific and educational organizations and other publishers.

Publication fees and business model

“Neophilology” is an Open Access journal.

The business model of the journal is Open Access Journals. This means that:

• content is created by scholars;
• publication is free for all authors;
• authors’ are not paid royalties;
• the publication of the journal is funded by the founding organization –Derzhavin Tambov State University;
• for readers all articles in the electronic version of the journal are available free of charge, immediately after the issues are published (no registration required).

The Editorial Board of the journal does not provide any paid or agency services. The journal does not work with intermediaries. Articles are accepted only from the authors. Accelerated deadlines for publication of articles are not provided. The author does not pay for the work of reviewers, editors, translators, proofreaders, layout designers.

Information disclosure and conflict of interests policy

To avoid cases of publication ethics violations, conflicts of interests for all parties involved in the manuscript publication process should be eliminated. A potential conflict of interests, according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, occurs when there are financial, personal, or professional conditions that could influence the scientific judgment of an author, reviewer, or editor and, as a consequence, the Editorial Board's decision regarding the publication of an article.

In order to prevent conflicts of interests and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal “Neophilology”, the following obligations are imposed on each party. By submitting an article for consideration to the “Neophilology”, the author declares that:

• all sources of research funding are indicated in the text of the article;
• there are no commercial, financial, personal or professional factors that could create a conflict of interest in relation to the submitted article;

or

• declares a potential conflict of interest;
• indicates the place of their study or work according to the organization’s Charter.

Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief about any possible differences of interest that may affect the Editorial Board’s decision (due to competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations associated with the submitted work) and decline to review the manuscript.

If there is a conflict of interest, the author may ask the Editor-in-Chief to exclude a particular reviewer from reviewing the article sent by them.

Editors and reviewers should declare a potential conflict of interest that may influence the Editorial Board’s decision.

If there is a conflict of interest between the editor or reviewer and the author of the article, the article must be transferred to another editor or reviewer, respectively.

The evaluation of the article should not be biased. The existence of a conflict of interest, which is stated by one of the participants in the review and review process, should not in itself lead to a refusal to publish, since the most important criterion for evaluating a manuscript is its scientific quality.

The Editorial Board is obliged (the editor is obliged):

– request information from all participants in the manuscript publication process regarding the possibility of competing interests;

– make a decision on publishing the information specified in the author’s letter regarding conflicts of scientific and/or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may influence the evaluation of the published work by readers or the scientific community;

– transfer the manuscript for review to another editorial board member or specialist if the initially assigned reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;

– ensure the publication of corrections if information about the conflict of interest was received after the article was published.

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.

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal “Neophilology” is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

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

1203. Language and Linguistics
1204. Literature and Literary Theory
1205. 3310. Linguistics and Language
1206. 3315. Communication
1207. 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.