ELLITE: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching upholds transparent, fair, and accountable credit attribution for all scholarly works published in the fields of English language, linguistics, literature, and pedagogy. Our authorship policies are strictly governed by the foundational principles outlined in the COPE Discussion Document on Authorship and the core ethical standards detailed in COPE's guidance on Authorship and Contributorship. As defined in the official COPE Glossary of Publication Ethics, authorship is the formal designation of specified individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to a scholarly work and who accept public and academic responsibility for its integrity.

1. Core Qualification Criteria for Authorship

To be listed as an author on any manuscript submitted to ELLITE, an individual must cumulatively satisfy all four substantial contribution and accountability criteria synthesized in the COPE Authorship Guidelines: (1) making substantial scholarly contributions to the conception or theoretical design of the work, or to the acquisition, corpus compilation, literary analysis, or pedagogical interpretation of data for the work; (2) drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (3) granting final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or ethical integrity of any part of the study are appropriately investigated and resolved. In accordance with COPE's Best Practices on Contributorship and Attribution, ELLITE strongly encourages authors to provide an itemized Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) statement and register their unique ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) identifiers upon submission. Furthermore, in multi-authored publications derived substantially from a student's thesis or dissertation in English studies, the student should generally be listed as the principal author while academic supervisors are credited proportionally to their actual intellectual involvement, as emphasized in the COPE Discussion Document on Humanities and Social Sciences Authorship.

2. Roles of the Corresponding Author and Co-Author Consent

Where a manuscript is prepared by a collaborative research group, one contributor must be designated by mutual consent as the Corresponding Author to serve as the primary point of contact during the editorial, peer-review, and post-publication phases. As clarified in the COPE Glossary definition of Corresponding Author, this administrative designation does not necessarily imply seniority or lead authorship, but it signifies direct responsibility for transparent communication, collecting conflict-of-interest disclosures, and ensuring the integrity of the submission process. Submitting a manuscript without the explicit knowledge and prior consent of all named co-authors is a severe breach of publication ethics that will result in immediate rejection or retraction in accordance with COPE's framework on Unconsented Co-Author Submissions. Where collaborative frameworks require shared communication duties across institutions, requests for dual corresponding authorship are evaluated following COPE's guidance on Multiple Corresponding Authors.

3. Non-Author Contributors and Acknowledgements

Individuals who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project but do not meet all four criteria for authorship must not be listed as authors; instead, they should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Consistent with COPE's standards on Non-Authoring Contributors, examples of activities that alone (without other substantial intellectual contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship include securing institutional funding, providing general administrative supervision of a department, supplying classroom access or language informants, performing routine statistical processing, or conducting purely technical proofreading and language editing. Because public acknowledgement may imply an endorsement of the study's data and conclusions, the Corresponding Author must obtain written permission from all acknowledged individuals before including their names, in compliance with COPE's preventive guidelines on Acknowledging Contributors.

4. Unacceptable Authorship Practices (Ghost, Guest, Gift, and Purchased Authorship)

ELLITE strictly prohibits all forms of unethical authorship misrepresentation and actively screens submissions for warning signs identified in COPE's Flowchart on How to Recognise Potential Authorship Problems. Specifically, the journal forbids: (a) Ghost Authorship, which is the omission of an individual who made substantial contributions that merit authorship, or the undisclosed use of professional writers; (b) Guest (Honorary) Authorship, which involves adding a prominent scholar or department head unconnected with the research merely to enhance the perceived prestige or acceptance chances of the paper; (c) Gift Authorship, defined in COPE's policy on Gift Authorship as awarding co-authorship out of courtesy, appreciation, or reciprocal favor to someone who did not contribute significantly; and (d) Purchased or Paper-Mill Authorship, where authorship slots are bought or sold after manuscript writing. When any of these unethical practices are suspected during editorial screening or peer review, the Editorial Board will suspend processing and investigate the manuscript strictly following COPE's Flowchart on Ghost, Guest, or Gift Authorship in a Submitted Manuscript.

5. Policy on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Authorship

In strict compliance with the official COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools, artificial intelligence tools, Large Language Models (such as ChatGPT), and automated writing assistants cannot meet the requirements for authorship and must never be listed as an author or co-author on any manuscript submitted to ELLITE. As emphasized in COPE's analysis on Artificial Intelligence and Authorship, non-human technologies cannot assume legal or ethical accountability for the originality, validity, and integrity of the scholarly work, nor can they manage copyright agreements or conflict-of-interest declarations. Authors who utilize AI tools to assist in literature organization, data coding, or English language polishing must transparently declare the specific tool name, version, and scope of use in the Methods or Acknowledgements section, and human authors remain solely responsible for any errors, fabricated citations, or ethical breaches in accordance with COPE's guidance on Handling Articles Produced by AI.

6. Changes to the Authorship List and Dispute Resolution

Authors are expected to carefully finalize the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript to ELLITE. In alignment with the COPE Position Statement on Handling Changes to Authorship Lists and the comprehensive COPE Changes in Authorship Flowcharts, any request to add, remove, or rearrange authors after initial submission must be accompanied by a formal written justification from the Corresponding Author and signed statements of agreement from all existing authors (including the author being added or removed). Requests made prior to publication are evaluated step-by-step under COPE's Flowchart for Adding an Author Before Publication and COPE's Flowchart for Removing an Author Before Publication. Post-publication changes to authorship are permitted only under exceptional circumstances warranting a formal corrigendum, verified strictly through COPE's Flowchart for Adding an Author After Publication and COPE's protocol on Post-Publication Authorship Amendments. In cases where co-authors cannot reach a consensus regarding authorship eligibility or order, ELLITE will pause the review or publication process and refer the matter back to the authors' respective research institutions for formal adjudication, adhering to COPE's guidance on Handling Contentious Authorship Disputes and COPE's policy on Institutional Resolution of Authorship Conflicts.