Publication Ethics

“Postmodernism Problems” strives to adhere to best practices throughout the entire publication process, beginning with a transparent procedure for manuscript submission, initial editorial screening, and communication with submitting authors regarding the relevance of their work to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts are then assigned to two independent reviewers with proven competence in the relevant field and without conflicts of interest, in order to obtain objective evaluations regarding acceptance or rejection.

The review process guarantees confidentiality and prohibits reviewers from using submitted texts or data for personal purposes prior to the completion of publication. Reviewers are expected to identify previously developed similar ideas, significant authors, or important studies not cited in the manuscript, to maintain a tolerant and impartial attitude in evaluation, and to alert the editors to possible fraud, plagiarism, or misuse of texts, authorship, or references. Preventing such misconduct is a primary responsibility of the editorial team.

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism or unethical omissions in any form. Authors submitting manuscripts must confirm that their work is original, has not been previously published in whole or in part, and is not under consideration elsewhere. The journal follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and expects compliance from editors, reviewers, and authors.

Several fundamental obligations and responsibilities apply to all parties involved in the publication process, namely authors, reviewers, and editors, who are connected to publication ethics and contribute to the maintenance of good practices.

The requirements, obligations, and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors correspond to compliance with both general and specific ethical standards and contribute to the establishment of good practices not only in publishing but also in post-publication activities.

AUTHORS’ OBLIGATIONS

Originality and Scientific Standards

Authors must submit original manuscripts consistent with the journal’s thematic focus and editorial policy and in accordance with generally accepted scientific standards. They must ensure accurate citation of all sources and include full references when referring to other works.

Authorship

Authorship is limited to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the research and writing. A Corresponding Author is responsible for communication with co-authors and for obtaining approval from all authors regarding submission, corrections, removal, or reordering of authorship.

Structure and Scientific Contribution

Manuscripts must include an abstract and keywords, appropriate structure, methodology, analysis, conclusions, and references. Authors must describe the state of the research problem, methods used, accuracy of results, and scientific significance. Methodological transparency is required to allow verification or replication. Proper citation of relevant scholarship is mandatory. The use of ideas, concepts, or materials without proper attribution is unacceptable.

Citation and Self-Citation

All significant works relevant to the topic must be properly cited. Every cited source must appear in the reference list. Excessive self-citation or manipulative citation practices are not tolerated. Self-citation exceeding approximately 10–20% of total references may be considered unacceptable. Periodic checks are conducted to prevent citation manipulation.

Data Access and Preservation

Authors are required to provide access to primary raw data related to their research as supporting evidence, including, where appropriate, for public access at various stages of the review process, in accordance with the ALPSP–STM Data and Database Statement. They are also required to preserve these data after publication in case of potential further interest or inquiry.

Cooperation During Review

Authors are co-participants in the review and publication process. They are required to respond to questions from reviewers and editors regarding primary raw data and, where necessary, to provide clarifications.

Responses to comments, requests for revision, and the addition of new data requested by the reviewers require the resubmission of the revised manuscript within 14 days of receiving the reviewers’ comments.

The revised manuscript is evaluated again. Upon completion of the review process, the authors are notified by the scientific secretary of the decision to accept or reject the submitted article.

Conflict of Interest and Funding

The authors must declare the presence or absence of any conflicts of interest of a professional, financial, or editorial nature that could be interpreted as influencing the presentation of the manuscript, its results, the evaluation of its quality, or its publication.

Sources of funding must be explicitly stated either in the abstract of the submitted manuscript or in an Acknowledgment section placed before the References..

Correction of Errors

If authors identify errors in their manuscripts after submission for publication, they must notify the Editor-in-Chief or the editor of the relevant issue and request their correction. The manuscript will be returned to the authors for revision.

If an editor, reviewer, or third party identifies significant errors in a submitted manuscript during the review process, the authors will be invited to correct them. If the errors cannot be corrected, the article will be withdrawn.

Plagiarism and Misconduct

In cases of plagiarism involving submitted manuscripts, as identified by reviewers, editors, or third parties, the authors will be notified by email of the alleged violations and given an opportunity to respond and provide an explanation. In less serious cases, the authors may be required to revise their manuscripts by removing the plagiarized or improperly cited material. In more serious cases, sanctions will be imposed, including rejection of the manuscript.

Unethical conduct and the corresponding sanctions are described in the section “Responsibilities of Editors” in relation to decisions concerning ethical violations. The sanctions are also set out in the journal’s Editorial Policy .

RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

The journal’s reviewers are established Bulgarian and international scholars holding at least a doctoral degree from various universities and research institutions, who have voluntarily agreed to participate in the review process as members of the editorial board.

The main responsibility of the reviewers is to contribute to the high quality of the journal’s publications by evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication.

Declaration of competence and availability

Each participant in the review process is provided with the topic and abstract of the submitted manuscript, together with a proposal to review a specific text from the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewer declares his or her level of competence and availability within the time frame established for the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. In the event of unforeseen circumstances, the reviewer must notify the editorial office of any inability to meet the deadline and request replacement.

Confidentiality

Reviewers are obliged to treat each manuscript sent for evaluation by the scientific secretary as confidential. They must not discuss its content, ideas, or approaches with third parties. Each reviewer, including those who decline to participate for objective reasons, is obliged to maintain confidentiality until the manuscript is published. In specific cases, confidentiality may also be required after publication.

Objectivity and impartiality in evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts in their role as contributors to publication decisions. Their comments and recommendations must contribute to the improvement of the texts and be supported by specific and relevant arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and not tolerated.

Support to the editors

Reviewers assist the editors by identifying relevant authors and studies that have not been mentioned or cited in the manuscript under review. They must point out specific works that have been omitted and inform the editors if similar statements, observations, or conclusions exist elsewhere, providing appropriate bibliographic data. Reviewers should also draw the attention of the Editor-in-Chief or the issue editor to any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published works of which they are aware.

Accuracy and proper use of sources

If reviewers identify similar ideas in other publications that are not properly cited in the submitted manuscript, they are obliged to indicate the specific similarities and inform the editors of potential unethical practices. Reviewers must also alert the editors to any substantial misuse of other authors’ texts, distortion of research, or simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal, regardless of language or country of publication.

Conflict of interest

Through their review activities, reviewers may become aware of specific ideas or data. They must not use or disclose such information prior to publication for personal benefit. Reviewers should decline to evaluate manuscripts if they suspect a conflict of interest with the authors or with institutions associated with the submission.

Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors before, during, and after the evaluation process, and authors remain anonymous to the reviewers until the completion of the review procedure. The confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, research data, and review comments is guaranteed. Reviewer identities may be disclosed only after the submission of the final evaluation or in cases of confirmed plagiarism or serious ethical violations.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS

The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for the quality of the published issues and articles. He bears direct responsibility for ensuring compliance with the principles of scientific ethics by issue editors, reviewers, and authors, as well as for safeguarding their legal rights and obligations, including the sanctioning of fraud and abuse.

He ensures that decisions regarding the acceptance of manuscripts are based solely on their scientific merit and adherence to ethical standards. Racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political bias must not influence publication decisions. The views and ideas expressed in accepted works do not necessarily reflect those of the Editor-in-Chief or the guest editors. Authors assume full legal and moral responsibility for the content of their articles. No editorial or legal liability is assumed in relation to compensation claims.

The Editor-in-Chief and issue editors maintain the anonymity of authors during the review process.

Adherence to good practices

The Editor-in-Chief and issue editors strive to follow best practices in addressing unethical conduct, identified errors, and authorship abuse. Preventing authorship misconduct is a core editorial responsibility. All forms of unethical behavior and plagiarism are subject to sanctions. The journal takes into account the editorial responsibilities set out in the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief and/or issue editors decide which submitted manuscripts will be published. Decisions are guided by the journal’s editorial policy and applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their intellectual content, without discrimination.

Editors must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher. Editors and reviewers may not use unpublished material for their own research without the author’s written consent. Editors ensure the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and prohibit their discussion with third parties. They also monitor whether reviews are objective and supported by reasoned arguments.

Cooperation with reviewers

Editors cooperate with reviewers to ensure that significant relevant works are properly cited and that any substantial similarity or overlap with previously published material is identified. Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of privileged information obtained through the review process and for preventing conflicts of interest. If an editor faces a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript, the handling of that manuscript will be transferred to another person.

Errors and ethical violations

The Editor-in-Chief takes final responsibility for addressing errors and unethical conduct identified during the review process or reported by third parties. Appropriate action is taken after careful examination of the evidence and communication with the author. Depending on the severity of the violation, measures may include requesting revisions or withdrawing the manuscript from the issue.

 

REMOVAL / WITHDRAWAL OF ARTICLES

Retraction may be required in the following cases:

• submission of a manuscript that has been accepted elsewhere but not yet published in final form;
• prior publication of the article due to editorial or review error;
• reliable evidence that findings are invalid due to miscalculation, data falsification, image manipulation, or similar misconduct;
• confirmed plagiarism involving significant textual overlap;
• prior publication of findings without proper disclosure;
• unauthorized publication of data;
• manipulation or fabrication of quotations;
• proven violations concerning the improper use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies that undermine confidence in the results.

In confirmed cases of misconduct, the author may receive a formal warning and the relevant institution may be notified.

Post-publication errors and unethical conduct

In cases where errors or findings of unethical behavior concern already published articles, the Editor-in-Chief takes appropriate action. He publishes information about the author’s unethical conduct in the next issue of the journal and establishes a clear link between that information and future searches related to the author.

When an error is identified after publication by the author of the article, and the error does not affect the results or conclusions, the author is given the opportunity to publish a correction. The correction must be prepared by the authors and is subject to review and approval by the Editor-in-Chief.

In rare cases, the editor may also correct an error made during the publication process. In such instances, an Editor’s Note is issued.

An Editor’s Note is justified if:

• the author is prompted to make a change or addition that he or she would not have made himself or herself, although these changes do not affect the results and conclusions of the article, and there are no other signs of ethical violation;
• there is an unresolved or irresolvable dispute about authorship, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings and data.

Post-publication action policy in case of gross unethical behavior

The journal provides the opportunity for anyone who finds that specific already published articles are accompanied by unethical violations to inform the editor-in-chief, the relevant issue editor, or the scientific secretary by email at the editorial office address.

It is mandatory to undertake additional review of the specific articles and alleged violations and to take relevant actions. Contact is made with the author(s) to inform them of the errors or accusations made against them and to clarify the facts, giving them the right to respond. For authors of publications that contain established scientific errors, fraud in results and facts, as well as proven plagiarism, the editor-in-chief, in close cooperation with the scientific secretary and the editors of the relevant issues, undertakes to impose several types of sanctions provided for this purpose, taking into account the severity of the ethical violations:

• placing a visible message that the specific article has been rejected and removed, if such a measure is decided;
• publishing the revealed ethical violations in an editorial by the editor-in-chief.

In the visible message, permanent active links are placed so that those who search for the specific article, even after years, have the opportunity to be warned.

• The information published with the article is entitled "Withdrawn:" supplemented with the title and author(s) of the article, signed by the editor-in-chief, published in a subsequent issue of the journal, and indicated in the table of contents.
• The electronic catalog where the article is archived also provides a link to the notice of withdrawal.
• The online article is preceded by a screen containing the withdrawal note. The link leads to this screen; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
• The original article is preserved unchanged, except for a watermark on the PDF file indicating on each page that it is "withdrawn".

 

Article removal: legal restrictions

The journal follows the practice that, in an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the journal’s online archive where it has been deposited. Mainly because of the importance of maintaining the scientific record as permanent and unaltered, article removal is rare and will only occur when the following cases are established:

• The article is defamatory or infringes the legal rights of others, and retraction is not a sufficient remedy;
• There is reasonable cause to expect that it will be the subject of a court decision;
• Legal action has already been taken.

In its overall work on article retraction in the post-publication process, the journal addresses issues such as when a retraction should be undertaken, what exactly should be included in the notification, who should issue the retraction, how quickly this should happen, what to do if there is inconclusive evidence, and how to proceed with group retractions when many articles are affected by the same problem.

The journal is guided by the detailed retraction guidelines of the COPE Council: COPE Retraction Guidelines (August 2025). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4  © 2025 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://publicationethics.org

The journal uses Turnitin to detect  texts that overlap with already published articles.

The journal does not publish texts that overlap with other authors’ publications by more than 20%.

The same applies to findings of data falsification and fabrication, and manipulation of tables, graphs, and figures.

Storage of publications in an electronic catalog

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the storage of published articles and for ensuring their long-term accessibility.

In addition to the official website of the journal, all issues with published articles are archived through annual deposit in national and international electronic catalogues - National Library "Cyril and Methodius", Bulgaria and CEEOL since 2011, when the journal was launched. Details about archiving are included in the Journal Policies.

Shared responsibility with the publisher

The Publishing House of the South-West University “Neofit Rilski” facilitates the partnership of the Editor-in-Chief with authorized national and international organizations. The Publisher assists in communication with other journals and/or global scientific databases, facilitating correspondence with them, and contributes to increasing opportunities for indexing.

Advertising Policy

The journal allows limited advertising on its website.

Advertisements do not affect the publication activity in any way.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to propose the rejection or removal of any advertisement that raises suspicion of conflict with good scientific publishing practice or ethical principles.