Editorial ethics

Editorial policy is based on the traditional ethical principles of the Russian scientific periodicals and is adapted to the ethical standards of editors and publishers, enshrined in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Magazine and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In the process of publishing editorial Board of the journal is guided by international rules of copyright protection, norms of the current legislation of the Russian Federation, international standards of publishing. The editorial Board recommends the authors to follow the following rules.

1. The duties of the editor, editorial staff and editorial Board

1.1. Decision on the publication

The journal editor is responsible for the acceptance of articles for publication, regardless of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal editorial Board and the laws established in the areas of libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Other editors, reviewers or editorial Board members can assist in this decision. The editorial Board ensures that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no influence on any editorial decisions.

1.2. Privacy policy

The editor or any editorial Board member must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author of the manuscript, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher.

1.3. The conflict of the parties

Editor in chief, editors and editorial Board members must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review process must be confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors must protect themselves from considering manuscripts (i.e. need to ask a coeditor, associate editor or other member of the editorial Board reviewed the manuscript instead) in respect of which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions related materials. Editors should require that all participants disclose relevant competing interests. If these interests are discovered after publication, editors must make corrections and disclose them. In case of need should be adopted and other relevant measures.

1.4. Complaints

In the case of complaints concerning a submitted manuscript or already published works editor, in cooperation with the publisher must take all possible measures to resolve the conflict. These include contact with the author of the manuscript or published work, the consideration of the corresponding complaint or claim, and further appeals to the respective institutions and research organizations. If the complaint is upheld, the publication may be revised and/or reduced and, if necessary, should be adopted and other relevant measures. Every act of unethical behavior reported must be investigated, even if it is discovered long after publication.

2. Duties of reviewers

2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the manuscript. Expert evaluation is an important component of formal academic communication and is the basis of the scientific method.

2.2. Competence

Every reviewer who feels incompetent in the scientific field of the submitted manuscript, or who knows, that will not be able to provide a rapid assessment of the manuscript should notify the editor and exclude himself from the review process.

2.3. Privacy policy

Any manuscripts received for evaluation, should be considered as confidential documents. The manuscript cannot be shown to others or discussed with third parties except for authorized editor.

2.4. Standards of objectivity

Expert assessment should be objective. Personal criticism of author is not relevant. Reviewers should clearly Express their opinion with supporting arguments.

2.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement previously known the fact shall be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also attract the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

2.6. The conflict of the parties

Information or ideas obtained through peer review process are confidential and should not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which there are conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.

3. Duties of authors

3.1. Standards

The authors describing the results of original research should present a detailed description of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The manuscript should contain references to earlier work in this area. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3.2. Data access

Authors should provide access to all data needed for drafting the evaluation, and should be ready to store these data within a reasonable time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that have written entirely original works, and if the manuscript was used the work and/or words of other authors, it must be quoted or indicated. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

3.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

The author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of the same manuscript for publishing in more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published work.

3.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should cite publications that influenced the course of the work reported. Information obtained privately in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or disclosed without written permission from the source. The information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the written permission of the author.

3.6. Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study. Other members of the independent aspects of the research work should be acknowledged or listed as contributors who made the contributions. The author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors included in the manuscript, saw and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.

3.7. A conflict of interest

All authors should indicate in the manuscript the fact of the availability of financial or other independent conflict of interest that could influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed at the earliest stage.

3.8. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in own published work, he shall as soon as possible to notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with them to correct mistakes.