The Journal of Contemporary Philology (JCP) is an academic periodical with no political, ideological, confessional, or other agendas. The Journal’s mission is solely to promote and advance scholarship. All participants in the editorial and publishing process (authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members) should keep this in mind and follow the ethical standards outlined below, which are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards: authors who have undertaken original research should, in their articles, present an accurate account of the work performed and strive for an objective discussion of its significance. The data collected should also be represented accurately. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. The author must avoid personal attacks, disparaging remarks, and accusations against other scholars. Defamation is not allowed in the Journal of  Contemporary Philology

Originality and plagiarism: authors should submit original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited. Self-plagiarism, i.e., the attempt to republish one’s own previously published work without significant changes to it, is unacceptable. The authors submitting papers to the Journal of Contemporary Philology must sign an Author’s Statement to confirm the originality and authenticity of their submissions.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publications: in general, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable. Submissions cannot be previously published, accepted for publications or under reviews in another journal or publication.

Acknowledgment of sources: appropriate acknowledgment of the work of others (both published and unpublished) must be given at all times. References to the authors’ own previously published works must also be acknowledged.

Authorship of the manuscript: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept of the article, to the research that led to the written study, to the analysis reported or to the interpretation of the results. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in the “Acknowledgements” section. The author/s listed should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author’s list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects: if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, it must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Authors should obtain express permission from subjects and respect their privacy.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: if the author has a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations which could influence his/her research, then this is a matter of conflict of interests. That is why all authors should disclose in their manuscript any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: if the author discovers inaccuracy in his/her own work that has already been published, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them in order to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Authors should consent to participate in JCP’s double-blind peer-review process.


Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions: the peer review process assists in improving the manuscript, and may also assist the editors to make editorial decisions.

Promptness: any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality: any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. This means that it must not be shown to or discussed with others outside of the editorial team and the two selected reviewers, unless authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. All comments and suggestions for improving the work should be made in polite form, and all criticism should be justified and explained. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. Reviewers should also draw the attention of the editorial board to any evidence of plagiarism.

Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should inform the editorial board if they identify in the article any relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s), and accompany the information with a relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission, including research funding support. If a reviewer recognizes the author of the article being reviewed and discovers a conflict of interest, he/she should inform the editor of this and recuse themselves. Contacts between the reviewer and the author maintained outside of the editorial board's responsibilities are not sufficient grounds for disqualification of the reviewer.


Editor Responsibilities

Accountability: the editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Fairness: the editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Confidentiality: the members of the editorial board, including the editor-in-chief must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The editor must ensure that the paper sent to the reviewers is anonimized. The members of the editorial board are not allowed to disclose the authors’ names to reviewers before the submitted paper has been published. The reviewer’s name can be disclosed to the author by the editorial board only at the request of the reviewer and only after the final decision regarding the publication of the submitted materials.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues: the editor shall be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by any members of the editorial board in their research without written consent of the author.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider the manuscript) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish such information if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Editors are open to post-publication discussion.

Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript. Papers written by members of the editorial board that are submitted for publication in the JCP are considered on their own merit, without regard for their author’s position on the board.

In the case of violation of any of the author responsibilities listed above, the editorial board is entitled to refuse to publish the manuscript, at any stage of the reviewing process, including during preliminary consideration, without involving reviewers, and also not to proceed with the publication of any work by the author for a period of two years.


 Publisher responsibilities

Complaints and appeals: The Publisher is obliged to collect and share with journal editors all complains and appeals against the journal and its editorial board. The Publisher is also obliged to inform COPE, when there is any violation of Publication Ethics and any other regulations applicable in Ss. Cyril and Methodius University - Skopje.


Copyright and Access

Copyright of individual articles is maintained by the authors.

Information regarding access to previously published content is available on the journal’s website.


Peer Review Process

Journal of Contemporary Philology has a double-blind peer-review process based on initial editor screening and double-blind refereeing by a minimum of two reviewers who are experts in the field. The peer review process is expected to be completed within three months.

The criteria for the blind peer review are clearly defined and reviewers are timely informed. Each criteria requires comments by reviewers. The criteria cover the following issues: aims, relevance, clarity of the claims, research questions or hypothesis, clearly stated methods, theoretical framework, in-depth data analysis, quality of the findings and the discussion sections, logical argumentation, clear organization and originality of the research.

The blind-peer review procedure means collegial anonymous review process during which the members of various academic communities assess the original manuscripts in the following stages:

1. When a paper is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief sends a confirmation to the author.

2. The editors, including the editor-in-chief, of the Journal of Contemporary Philology accept and send for review only scholarly papers which follow the submission guidelines. Apart from the technical guidelines about the structure and the layout of the papers, the editors should pay attention to the academic language. Only papers that satisfy the academic standards are selected for further review.

3. In the next stage, the editorial board generally identifies two reviewers, experts in the adequate field, who agree to evaluate the paper.  The editor-in-chief, in coordination with the other editors of the JCP, sends each of the received scholarly papers to two reviewers who have expertise in the field or the discipline. In case a reviewer rejects making an evaluation on the paper, another reviewer, also expert in the adequate field, is contacted. The reviews are written in English or Macedonian. If the reviews of the two reviewers differ significantly, then the editors contact a third reviewer. A comprehensive list acknowledging all manuscript reviewers (whether or not the paper was accepted) is printed every two years. Reviewers who do not wish to be identified are not included in the published list. Reminders are sent to the reviewers if and when necessary.

4. The reviewers send the reviewed manuscripts back to the editors who send the papers to the authors. The outcomes of the review process are that the paper is (i) Accepted without modifications, (ii) Accepted with minor changes suggested by the reviewer, (iii) Accepted with significant changes suggested by the reviewer, (iv) Rejected but the author may resubmit the revised paper, or (v) rejected. The authors edit their manuscripts and along with the re-submission they should provide a list of implemented corrections and send them back to the editors. For (i), the paper is not sent back to the reviewers, and the editor-in-chief checks that the recommended revisions have been satisfactorily completed; for (ii) and (iii), the editor-in-chief will send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers to confirm they approve the revised versions and for any further suggestions (reviewers are asked to respond within a month); for (iv), editor-in-chief will send the paper back to original reviewers for full review (in some cases, at the EC’s discretion and in consultation with the Editorial Board, the original reviewer(s) can be substituted with new ones); for (v) the manuscript is not received for publication, but the comments and suggestions by the reviewers are sent to the author.

5. Any changes added by the author to a text that has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication can be made only in coordination with the editorial board. An author can withdraw an accepted work only before the materials have been sent out for editing. If the author absolutely wishes to withdraw the material from publication after the editorial work has been done, the editorial board is entitled to refuse to consider publication of any work submitted by this author for a period of two

6. It is unacceptable for an author to place into the public domain any materials that have been accepted for publication and sent for editing but which have not yet been published. If this rule is violated, the editorial board is entitled to withdraw these materials and to refuse to consider publication of any work by the author for a period of two