Code of Ethics and Publication Principles

Policy Statement

To safeguard the academic quality of research in literary studies and the reliability of the work it publishes, METAFOR follows the policy set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy establishes the ethical principles, editorial standards, and publication procedures that govern the journal, and it applies to authors, editors, referees, editorial board members, guest editors, and publishers at every stage of submission, review, and publication.

1. Aim and Scope

METAFOR publishes original scholarship in literature and in humanities disciplines closely related to literary study. The journal welcomes work in literary criticism and theory, comparative literature, cultural studies, and translation studies, together with other interdisciplinary research centered on literature. Because close reading, critical interpretation, archival work, and the careful, historically informed use of translations and sources are central to the articles it publishes, the journal's ethical standards are designed to protect both academic freedom and academic responsibility. Authors are accordingly expected to adhere closely to the citation system, to argue their case in good faith, to make accurate use of primary and secondary sources, and to uphold professional and scientific integrity.

2. Editorial Independence and Impartiality

Editorial decisions are made on academic grounds alone. Submissions are assessed for the originality of the text, the quality of its argument, methodological consistency, fit with the journal's scope, clarity of expression, and contribution to current academic debate. Editors must not allow personal bias, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, political opinion, or any other non-academic consideration to influence the evaluation process. Editorial decisions may not be influenced by the publisher, the journal's owner, any sponsor, or any party providing financial support to the journal. Responsibility for decisions on examination, review, acceptance, rejection, revision, or retraction rests entirely with the editorial board.

3. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief, Editors, and the Editorial Board

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal's overall ethical and academic direction. Editors are responsible for the preliminary evaluation of submissions, the selection of referees qualified in the relevant field, the protection of confidentiality, the identification of conflicts of interest, and the consistent application of editorial decisions. Members of the editorial board are appointed on the basis of expertise and academic standing, and their names and institutional affiliations are made public and kept up to date. An editor or board member with a personal, professional, financial, or institutional conflict of interest concerning a particular submission withdraws from its evaluation. Where an ethical question is especially complex, the journal may seek an independent outside opinion.

4. Authors' Responsibilities

Authors submitting to METAFOR are responsible for the originality of their work, for submitting a clean copy free of writing errors, and for confirming that the manuscript is not under review elsewhere, except in cases of which the editors have been informed in advance. The submitted work must reflect the author's own academic contribution and must cite all sources drawn on in its preparation, including translations, ideas, archival material, images, and earlier scholarship in the same field. Authors are responsible for securing permission for copyrighted material where required, and for the lawful and correct use of quotations, facsimiles, and images. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal, for confirming that all co-authors approve the submission, and for the accuracy of the information provided at submission.

5. Authorship, Contribution, and Acknowledgments

Authorship belongs to the person or persons who have made the principal intellectual contribution to a text's conception, research, interpretation, discussion, and writing. Those who have provided more limited help, such as technical or administrative support, copyediting, or general advice, should be named in the acknowledgments rather than listed as authors. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of the submission files, but responsibility for the academic integrity of the work is shared by all authors.

6. Originality, Prior Publication, and Reuse

METAFOR considers only original work. The journal will not accept a submission involving plagiarism, the misleading representation of a source, quotation without attribution, or the prior publication elsewhere of a substantial part of the submitted text. Authors must state clearly whether any version of the work has previously appeared in public form, whether as a master's or doctoral thesis, a conference paper, course material, a preprint, an item in an institutional repository, or a catalogue entry. Authors may draw on their own earlier work in part and with due acknowledgment, provided the new submission does not amount to duplicate publication. The journal reserves the right to use similarity detection software and editorial judgment to assess overlap between texts.

7. Academic Integrity

Many submissions in the field of literary studies raise significant ethical issues, even though they do not involve laboratory work or clinical research. Authors must represent texts, archival material, translations, historical sources, and scholarly debate accurately and reliably. Where a submission draws on interviews, oral history, unpublished correspondence, personal data, classroom research, ethnographic observation, or a digital humanities dataset involving living persons, authors must explain how consent was obtained and which institution granted ethical approval. Where the work relies on sensitive archival material, community beliefs, or culturally sensitive content, authors must show that these sources have been used responsibly and in keeping with the relevant legal and ethical constraints.

8. Citation, Permissions, and the Ethics of Translation

The journal expects authors to cite their sources rigorously and honestly. A source must not be misrepresented in a way that changes its meaning, and authors must not mislead readers through selective quotation, mistranslation, or any other distortion of the material they use. Misleading citation, including the padding of a reference list for any reason, is not acceptable. Where a translation is the author's own, this should be stated explicitly. Where copyrighted translations, images, facsimiles, or other protected material are used, the author is responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and for citing them correctly.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools

Authors may use digital tools, including artificial intelligence systems, only for limited support that does not compromise the originality, accuracy, reliability, or accountability of their work. Because authorship carries a form of responsibility that an AI system cannot assume, such tools may not be credited as authors. If artificial intelligence has been used to draft the text, to translate, summarize, or code any part of it, or to process data in a way that shapes the substance of the study, this use must be disclosed at submission. Responsibility for the accuracy of quotations, sources, interpretations, translations, and factual claims rests with the author in every case. Editors and referees may not upload confidential manuscripts or reports to an AI system unless the journal has established a secure procedure, compliant with the relevant regulations, for this purpose.

10. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest arises whenever a personal, professional, financial, institutional, ideological, or collaborative relationship might reasonably be seen to affect an evaluation. Authors must disclose any income source or relationship that could affect how their work is presented or received. Referees should decline an invitation to review when they cannot offer an independent, impartial assessment, and editors should withdraw from an evaluation when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Where a conflict of interest arises, the journal may request a disclosure, change the referee or editor assigned, publish an explanatory note, or take any other measure it considers appropriate.

11. Peer Review Policy and Referees' Responsibilities

METAFOR follows an anonymous double-blind review process, and the identities of authors and referees are kept confidential to the extent this model allows. Submissions that pass initial editorial screening are sent to at least two referees with expertise in the relevant field. Referees are expected to complete their assessments fairly, respectfully, and within a reasonable time, to preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript, and not to make use of privileged information for personal advantage. A referee who suspects plagiarism, a problematic claim to authorship, unethical research, misleading citation, or any other breach of ethics is expected to inform the editors.

12. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction

METAFOR is committed to maintaining a reliable scholarly record. When a published article is found to contain a factual error, a misleading statement, an ethical breach, or a finding that compromises its reliability, the journal decides on the most appropriate response. Depending on the severity of the issue, this may take the form of a correction, a clarification, an editorial note, an expression of concern, or a retraction. Any such notice is clearly linked to the article concerned and gives a transparent, reasoned account of the journal's decision. A retraction, in this sense, is not a punitive measure but an effort to correct the scholarly record.