TitlePolish language of aphasia: a scoping review in the era of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
Journal titleLINGUISTICA SILESIANA
AffiliationDębski, Robert : Jagiellonian University ; Wójcik-Topór, Paulina : Jagiellonian University ; Knapek, Magdalena : Jagiellonian University
KeywordsPolish language ; aphasia ; scoping review ; International Classification of Functioning
Divisions of PASNauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne
PublisherPolska Akademia Nauk • Oddział w Katowicach
Editorial BoardEDITORIAL BOARD
- W. Banyś (Katowice)
- B. Bierwiaczonek (Częstochowa)
- M. Bilynsky (Lviv)
- K. Bogacki (Warszawa)
- A. Bogusławski (Warszawa)
- J. Čermák (Prague)
- B. Cetnarowska (Katowice)
- M. Charzyńska-Wójcik (Lublin)
- J. Cygan (Wrocław)
- J. Fisiak (Poznań)
- D. Gabryś-Barker (Katowice)
- P. Kakietek (Katowice)
- M. Krygier (Poznań)
- A.M. Lewicki (Lublin)
- A. Łyda (Katowice)
- J.G. Newman (Texas)
- J. Nykiel (Bergen)
- M. van Oostendorp (Amsterdam)
- T. Piotrowski (Wrocław)
- H. Sauer (Munich)
- Cz. Schatte (Poznań)
- P. Stalmaszczyk (Łódź)
Publication Ethics PolicyEthical principles
Editors of “Linguistica Silesiana”, to maintain high-quality published articles and scientific integrity, preserve and enforce ethical principles, regarding both authors and editors of scientific publications, as well as reviewers.
The following information on the ethics of publication for “Linguistica Silesiana” is based on guidelines for best practices for the editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
I. Responsibilities of Authors
1. Authorship of work
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept and implementation of research and the interpretation of published research findings. Anyone who has contributed significantly to the creation of the work should be listed as co-authors. Persons whoparticipated only in parts of the research work resulting in the article should be listed in "acknowledgements" (see point 10). The lead author (or the author to whom correspondence should be addressed) should ensure that all co-authors (as defined above)are co-authors of the article and that there are no people who should not be listed among co-authors. The lead author (or author to whom correspondence should be addressed) should also ensure that all contributors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.
2. Disclosure and conflict of interest
The author should disclose any sources of funding for projects in his work, the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities, and any material conflicts of interest that may affect his / herperformance or interpretation.
3. Standards for presenting research reports
The authors of the text based on their own research should provide a thorough overview of the work done and objectively discuss their significance. The work should contain enough details and references to scientific literature to allow others to repeat thework. Incorrect or deliberate inaccurate statements are treated as unethical and are not permitted.
4. Multiple, redundant or competitive publications
The author should in principle not publish materials describing the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of the same work to more than one journal editor at a time is unethical and is not permitted.
5. Confirmation of sources
The author should cite publications that have influenced the creation of a complex text, and each time confirm the use of the work of other authors.
6.Data access and data retention
The author should provide unprocessed data regarding the publication submitted for review or should be ready to allow access to such data. He or she should also retainthis data for a minimum of one year from publication.
7. Major errors in published works
If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her published work, it is his or her responsibility to immediately notify the editor-in-chief and to cooperate with him or her to withdraw the article or publish the necessary errata.
8. Originality and plagiarism
The author submits to the editor only the original work. At the same time, it should be ensured that the names of the authors quoted in thework and/or excerpts of the works cited arecorrectly quoted or exchanged.
Ghostwriting/guest authorship is a manifestation of scientific misconduct and any detected cases will be exposed, including notification to the relevant authorities. Symptoms of scientific misconduct, especially violations of ethics in science will be documented by the editor.
10. Acknowledgements and information sources
Articles should include the acknowledgements for the people or institutions who have done the work for the author. Authors should also cite publications that have significantly influenced the finaleffect of the published paper.
II. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief and other members of the Editorial Board
1. Decisions to publish
The editor-in-chief is obliged to comply with current defamation laws, infringe copyright and plagiarism, and be fully responsible for the decisions that the articles should be published. He or she may consult with thematic editors and/or reviewers.
No member of the editorial team may disclose information about complex work to anyone other than the author (s), reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants (e.g. translators) and the publisher.
3. Impartiality and justice
The editor-in-chief should evaluate the content submitted regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality or political preferences of the author (s).
4. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished articles or their excerpts may not be used in the editorial team's own research or reviewers without the express written permission of the author.
5. Engaging and collaborating in research
The editor-in-chief should guard the integrity of his or her magazine by applying corrections and withdrawals, as well as tracking suspicious research or alleged misconduct in publications and reviews. He or she should take appropriate action when ethical objections to the submitted work or published article arise.
III. Responsibilities of the Reviewers
1. Editorial decisions
The reviewer supports the editor in making editorial decisions and can also assist the author in improving his / her work.
Any selected reviewer who cannot review a work or knows that a quick review will not be possible should inform the editor-in-chief.
3. Objectivity standards
Reviews should be done in an objective way. The author's personal criticism is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly, using the appropriate arguments in support of their theses.
Any reviewed article or other text for publication must be treated as confidential. It cannot be shown or discussedwith other people without the permission of the editor-in-chief.
All reviews are done anonymously, and the editorial team doesnot share the reviewer's data.
6. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Confidential information or ideas arisingfrom a review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not review works that are subject to conflicts of interest arising from relationships or other connections to the author, company or workplace.
7. Confirmation of information sources
Reviewers should indicate publications that have not been referred to by the author. Any statement that the observation, source, or argument was previously discussed should be supported by a suitable quote. The reviewer should also inform the editor-in-chief of any significant similarity, partial overlap of reviewed work with any other published or known work or suspicion of plagiarism.
IV. Statement by the Publisher
In cases of alleged or verified scientific research, unfair publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editor-in-chief of the journal, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and make amendments to a particular article. This includes the rapid publication of the errata or, in justified cases, the full withdrawal of the work from the journa
ReviewersThe Linguistica Silesiana peer-referees 2017-2020
- Beata Abdallah-Krzepkowska
- Magdalena Bartłomiejczyk
- Magdalena Bator
- Monika Bielińska
- Bogusław Bierwiaczonek
- Krzysztof Bogacki
- Jan Čermák
- Bożena Cetnarowska
- Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik
- Grzegorz Drożdż
- Radosław Dylewski
- Henryk Fontański
- Danuta Gabryś-Barker
- Piotr Gąsiorowski
- Łukasz Grabowski
- Ireneusz Kida
- Robert Kiełtyka
- Marcin Krygier
- Marcin Kuczok
- Katarzyna Kwapisz-Osadnik
- Czesław Lachur
- Andrzej Łyda
- Ewa Miczka
- Ewa Myrczek-Kadłubicka
- John G. Newman
- Mikołaj Nkollo
- Jerzy Nykiel
- Ewa Piechurska-Kuciel
- Tadeusz Piotrowski
- Adam Pluszczyk
- Andrzej Porzuczek
- Hans Sauer
- Czesława Schatte
- Piotr Stalmaszczyk
- Monika Sułkowska
- Konrad Szcześniak
- Krystyna Warchał
- Halina Widła
- Krzysztof Witczak
- Adam Wojtaszek
- Marcin Zabawa