Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics of the Journal First Language Pedagogy (Anyanyelv-pedagógia)

The journal First-Language Pedagogy (Anyanyelv-pedagógia) is fully committed to upholding, representing, and disseminating the highest ethical principles. In accordance with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications of the Council of Science Editors, all authors, editors, reviewers, and others involved in the journal's publication process must adhere to the principles detailed below. Furthermore, we ask authors to follow the recommendations of COPE in all related activities.

1. Ethical principles concerning authors

By submitting a manuscript, the authors acknowledge that the work is their own original intellectual product, that its publication does not infringe upon the rights of any third party, that the submitted work has not been previously published, and that it is not under review by any other academic forum. In the event of any complaint by a third party, full responsibility rests with the author(s), including any potential financial consequences. By submitting the manuscript, the author automatically accepts the terms and conditions published on the journal’s website. The journal will publish the author(s)’ name(s), ORCID identifier(s), email address(es), and institutional affiliation(s) in the agreed format.

Authors must:

• register on the journal’s website prior to the submission of the manuscript; in the case of co-authored submissions, all co-authors must be registered;
• submit studies based on their own research, in accordance with the standards and citation rules of acknowledging and referring to other works, refraining from any forms of plagiarism. Plagiarism is considered a serious violation of academic ethics and is not tolerated;
• properly acknowledge all contributors involved in the research;
• submit original manuscripts that have not been previously published in any other (digital or print) publication;
• refrain from submitting the same manuscript to any other medium while it is under review by the journal;
• submit manuscripts based solely on original results and avoid reformulation of previously published findings. In case of partial overlap, they must properly reference their prior publications;
• are responsible for the ethical use of AI tools; if an AI tool was used in the preparation of the manuscript, this must be documented in a separate paragraph at the end of the manuscript, specifying which AI tool was used and for what purpose;
• treat the work of fellow researchers with fairness and professionalism, avoiding personal comments or offensive language;
• be responsible for the authenticity and accuracy of the data used in their research;
• clearly indicate the funding sources of their research in the format specified by the journal;
• fully comply with the Author Guidelines of the journal Anyanyelv-pedagógia, and prepare and submit the manuscript accordingly; cooperate with the editors and acknowledge that their manuscript will undergo a double-blind review process and other editing procedures;
• inform the editors about any conflicts of interest that could affect the fair and anonymous review process;
• revise the manuscript by the deadline specified by the editorial team based on reviewers’ comments and editorial suggestions; together with the revised manuscript, they submit a response document summarizing how the revisions were implemented;
• report any errors or omissions they discover in their study, either during preparation or after publication, allowing editors to issue corrections or retract the study.

2. Ethical principles concerning the editorial team and editorial processes

Members of the editorial team carry out all related activities in accordance with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications).

Editors must:

• ensure compliance with ethical standards, guaranteeing the exclusion of personal, financial, or other non-professional interests from all editorial and publication processes;
• ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, professionally, and impartially, regardless of the authors’ ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, age, or institutional affiliation;
• clearly define and publish the criteria of evaluation and procedures used by the journal;
• be responsible for the quality of the review process and ensure that submitted manuscripts are reviewed by qualified reviewers through a double-blind peer-review process;
• be solely responsible for the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts;
• ensure that the procedures used by the journal, particularly the review process, are free from conflicts of interest;
• guarantee the anonymity of authors and reviewers;
• ensure authors’ and reviewers’ anonymity even when a member of the editorial team who has access to the journal’s website in ELTE’s OJS uploads a manuscript for review; in such cases, to maintain double-blind peer review, the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief sends the anonymous manuscript to the reviewers via email; the reviewers then return their anonymous review comments via email to the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief, who uploads the anonymous reviews to the OJS system, where the author can view them;
• must not upload manuscript texts into AI tools; AI tools may be used solely for plagiarism detection, preliminary verification of references, and translation, and human oversight is required in all cases;
• publish corrections or, where necessary, consider the retraction of articles (particularly in cases where authorship is in question or when plagiarism or other serious ethical misconduct is suspected);
• investigate and resolve all complaints or disputes, ensuring that all parties involved are fairly represented;
• adhere strictly to ethical principles concerning authors and editors.

3. Ethical principles concerning the peer review process

The journal’s ethical principles, as well as the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors, apply to the peer review process and to all participants involved in it.

All submitted manuscripts undergo a pre-review screening prior to peer review, carried out by the editorial leadership (editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, journal manager).

The main criteria of the pre-review screening are:

• alignment of the manuscript topic with the journal’s scope;
• suitability of the manuscript genre to the journal’s profile and sections;
• appropriateness of the manuscript’s style to the journal’s profile and to the genre of submission (article, report, review, or reader letter);
• compliance with the journal’s author guidelines;
• plagiarism check;
• preliminary verification of the authenticity of references.

To ensure academic quality, studies submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by two expert reviewers. All communication between authors and reviewers is mediated by the editors. The identity of reviewers and review reports are not disclosed. Between 2008 and 2024, the peer review process and double-blind review were conducted via email. From January 2025, the peer review process has been managed through the ELTE OJS system.

If a submitted manuscript is authored by a member of the editorial team who has access to the journal’s OJS interface, the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief sends the anonymous manuscript to the reviewers via email; the reviewers then return their anonymous review comments via email to the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief, who uploads the anonymous reviews to the OJS system, where the author can view them;

If, due to the specialized nature of the topic, an editorial team member serves as a reviewer in the double-blind process, they must not have access to the journal’s OJS interface until the article is published, in order to preserve double anonymity.

Manuscripts of reports, reviews, and reader letters are evaluated internally by a member of the editorial team (section editor). If the author of such a submission is a member of the editorial team, they may not act as the internal reviewer; instead, another editorial team member conducts the review following the pre-review screening.

The main criteria of double-blind and internal review are:

• relevance of the topic, originality, and genre of the manuscript;
• compliance with the journal’s author guidelines;
• structure of the text;
• reliability and validity of the content;
• appropriate development of the introduction, the main exposition, the argumentation, and the conclusion;
• completeness and accuracy of references;
• reliability, relevance, and currency of the literature used;
• consistency between references and citations;
• style, language, spelling, and typography.

A detailed review form is available for download.

Reviewers must:

• only accept review requests if they have the required skills and knowledge to review the manuscript properly and objectively;
• notify the editor of any violation of norms or conflicts of interest that might affect the objective and anonymous review process;
• decline the review if they are not eligible to evaluate the manuscript or if any conflict of interest exists;
• by accepting the invitation, agree to comply with the journal’s ethical and review standards and procedures;
• must not use artificial intelligence to prepare their review and must not upload the manuscript text into AI tools;
• may use AI tools solely for preliminary verification of references, but must always perform human verification;
• provide their reviews within the agreed timeframe in a clear and professional manner, adhering to the journal's procedures and justifying each element of their evaluation;
• prepare reviews that contain only professional opinions, avoiding personal comments, offensive remarks, or offensive language;
• pay special attention to any lack of proper referencing in the manuscript;
• inform the editorial leadership if there is any suspicion of violations of academic or ethical standards;
• must not include any information in their review that could reveal their identity;
• handle the manuscript received for review with strict confidentiality.

4. Conditions for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts

Conditions for the acceptance of a manuscript:

• The manuscript is deemed suitable for publication based on the pre-review screening.
• In the double-blind peer review process, both reviewers consider the manuscript suitable for publication.
• The manuscript is also approved for publication based on the section editor’s evaluation.
• Reviews, reports, and reader letters may be published based on the thorough internal review conducted by the section editor.

Reasons for final rejection of a manuscript:

• The topic of the manuscript does not align with the profile of the academic journal.
• The genre of the manuscript does not align with the profile of the academic journal.
• The style of the manuscript does not align with the profile of the academic journal and with the genre of the submission (article, report, review, or reader letter). In this case, the author may resubmit a revised version as a new manuscript, which will undergo a new review process.
• The author has committed a breach of academic ethics:
• prior publication of the manuscript with another publisher or simultaneous submission to another publisher;
• confirmed plagiarism in the manuscript;
• inclusion of non-existent references in the bibliography;
• citing existing sources while presenting data or claims not contained in those sources;
• presenting data or claims attributed to the author’s own research without proper evidence;
• verifiable unethical or inadequately documented use of AI tools.
• Outcome of the double-blind peer review: neither reviewer considers the manuscript suitable for publication; one reviewer rejects the manuscript and the other recommends major revisions.
• Outcome of the internal review of reviews, reports, or reader letters: the manuscript is not suitable for publication.
• The author fails to revise the manuscript by the specified deadline based on reviewers’ comments and editorial suggestions. In this case, the author may resubmit a revised version as a new manuscript, which will undergo a new review process.
• If, after publication, a violation is discovered that would have justified rejection, the editorial board will retract the article.

The editorial board appoints a third reviewer if, in the double-blind review process, one reviewer rejects the manuscript while the other recommends minor revisions or acceptance without changes. If the third reviewer also does not consider the manuscript suitable for publication, the manuscript is rejected definitively.

Reasons for rejection with the possibility of revision:

• The manuscript does not comply with the author guidelines regarding format, typography, and required sections.
• The length of the manuscript significantly deviates from the minimum or maximum limits specified in the author guidelines.
• The references and citations are authentic, but their bibliographic details are inaccurate, or the references and citations are not consistent with each other.

Ethical principles concerning plagiarism handling:

• If plagiarism is suspected, the editorial board conducts a thorough human review of the manuscript.
• If plagiarism is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected without the possibility of revision. The rejected manuscript may not be resubmitted.
• If plagiarism is confirmed after publication, the editorial board retracts the published article.

Post-publication corrections and retractions:

• The editorial team does not correct typographical or language errors after publication.
• If a serious academic error is confirmed after publication, a committee (editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, journal manager, section editor) decides whether to retract the article or issue a correction.
• If a breach of academic ethics is confirmed after publication, the editorial board retracts the article.

Grounds for permanent exclusion of an author from publication in the journal:

• If an author’s manuscript is rejected for a second time due to any breach of academic ethics, the author is permanently excluded from publishing in the journal. This decision is final and cannot be appealed.
• The editorial board also permanently excludes the author if one of their articles published in Anyanyelv-pedagógia is subsequently retracted for any reason. This decision is final and is not subject to appeal.

5. Ethical use of AI tools

AI tools may only serve a supplementary and supportive role in the preparation of manuscripts; they must not replace human intellectual activity, responsibility, decision-making, or critical thinking.

• The author of the submitted manuscript is responsible for the ethical use of AI tools.
• The author is also responsible for any errors or inaccuracies in the text and assumes responsibility for the academic validity of the content and conclusions, as well as for the authenticity and accuracy of the cited sources, references, and literature.
• If the author uses artificial intelligence in the preparation of the manuscript, they must document this in a separate paragraph at the end of the manuscript, specifying which AI tool was used and for what purpose.
• Authors may use AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript in the following cases:
• preliminary collection of relevant literature with human verification;
• generating suggestions for the manuscript title;
• translating the abstract, title, and keywords with human verification;
• verifying the authenticity of references with human verification;
• generating stylistic suggestions for parts of the manuscript text;
• generating images and figures included in the manuscript, with precise source attribution and clear indication of the AI tool used.
• It is prohibited to present and submit AI-generated content as one’s own intellectual work or original results. The use of AI-generated outputs or content (text, images, audio, data) without proper attribution constitutes a breach of academic ethics. If confirmed by peer review or editorial checks, the editorial board will reject the manuscript definitively. A rejected manuscript may not be resubmitted.
• Members of the editorial team and reviewers may use AI tools as follows:
• The editorial leadership uses the Turnitin plagiarism detection software provided by Eötvös Loránd University to check manuscripts for plagiarism. In cases of suspected plagiarism, a human review is also conducted.
• Editorial team members and reviewers must not upload manuscript texts into AI tools.
• Editorial team members may use AI tools for preliminary verification of references and for translation, but human oversight is required in all cases.

• Reviewers must not use AI tools to prepare their review and must not upload the manuscript text into AI tools.
• Reviewers may use AI tools solely for the preliminary verification of references, but human verification is required in all cases.
• If editorial team members or reviewers use AI tools, they are responsible for their ethical use.

6. Ethical principles concerning the publisher

The journal’s ethical principles, as well as the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors, also apply to the activities of the publisher.

The publisher must:

• provide appropriate support to the editors and all parties involved to ensure compliance with the journal’s ethical principles;
• collaborate with authors, editors, and reviewers to improve processes and procedures;
• be committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scientific research, ensuring access to published articles through the journal website and the ELTE Digital Institutional Repository (EDIT) of Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE).

7. Handling violations of ethical principles and complaints

If there is a suspicion that someone has violated any of the above ethical principles, the case must be thoroughly documented and investigated. The responsible parties must be notified immediately, and the allegedly offending party must be given a fair opportunity to present their position. Alleged breaches of ethical principles are investigated in all cases by a four-member committee (editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, journal manager, section editor), which decides on further steps depending on the outcome of the investigation.

In minor cases, the proven error must be corrected, and the responsible party should be warned to refrain from unethical behaviour. In serious cases, the publication of the manuscript in question must be reconsidered from the first step of the process. Depending on the severity of the ethical violation, legal action may also be taken in accordance with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications).

Complaints regarding the work or decisions of the editorial board may be submitted within eight days of the relevant case to anyp@btk.elte.hu,  from the complainant’s email address registered with the journal. In the case of author complaints involving co-authors, all co-authors must be copied on the email. Complaints are examined by a five-member committee (editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, journal manager, section editor, and a representative of the publisher), which decides on the response. The decision of the committee is final.

Members of the editorial team, as well as members of the committees investigating ethical violations and complaints, handle such cases in accordance with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications).