Пропустить команды ленты
Пропустить до основного контента
SharePoint

Российский экономическийУНИВЕРСИТЕТ
имени Г.В. Плеханова

Основан в 1907 году

Publication ethics


Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional conduct in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, disseminating and using scientific publications. The policy of the scientific and analytical journal "Science and Practice" of the Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov in the field of publishing ethics relies on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE).

1. Duties of editors

1.1. Decision on publication. The editor-in-chief and scientific editor of the scientific journal independently and independently are responsible for making a decision on publication, basing on cooperation with the editorial board, the international expert council and the editorial board of the journal. The scientific content of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision to publish. The editor can follow the policy of the editorial board of the journal, being limited by the current legal requirements for libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

1.2. Impartiality. The editor-in-chief and scientific editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of authors.

1.3. Confidentiality. The editor-in-chief, the scientific editor and the editorial board are not obliged to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to third parties without the need to disclose information about the accepted manuscript, except for authors, reviewers and other consultants.

1.4. Conflicts of interest and policies for their resolution

1.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration can not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas received during review and related to priority benefits should be kept confidential and can not be used for personal gain.

1.4.2. Editors should refrain from considering manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies and other organizations associated with the manuscript.

1.5. Supervision of publications. The scientific editor, who provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions contained in the publication are erroneous, should notify the editor-in-chief and the publisher with a view to prompt notification of the introduction of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant situations of action.

1.6. Actions in case of ethical claims. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, take adequate responses in the case of ethical claims concerning the manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the corresponding complaint or claim, but may also imply interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2. Responsibilities of reviewers

2.1. Effect on the decisions of the editorial board. Reviewing helps the editor-in-chief make an adequate decision about publishing and, through appropriate interaction with the authors, can also help the author improve the quality of his work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the view that all scientists who want to publish their work must participate in the review of manuscripts.

2.2. Exercise. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his / her qualification for the examination of the manuscript or who does not have enough time to do the work quickly must notify the scientific editor and ask him to be excluded from the process of reviewing the corresponding manuscript.

2.3. Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review should be considered a confidential document. This work can not be discussed with persons who do not have the authority of the editor-in-chief.

2.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their views.

2.5. Recognition of primary sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published works relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. For any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier, the manuscript must have a corresponding bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the scientific editor to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is in the scientific competence of the reviewer.

2.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

2.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration can not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas received during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and can not be used for personal gain.

2.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the consideration of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the work submitted.

3. Duties of Authors

3.1. Requirements for manuscripts. The authors of the manuscript should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective judgment on the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be accurately represented, without errors. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3.2 Data access and storage. The authors can be asked for raw data relevant to the manuscript, for review and evaluation by editors. Authors should be willing to provide open access to this kind of information, if possible, and in any case, keep this data for a reasonable period after publication.

3.3. Originality and Plagiarism

3.3.1. Authors must ensure that the original work is presented in its entirety and, in the case of using the works or statements of other authors, provide relevant bibliographic references or citations.

3.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms - from representing someone else's work as an author's work before copying or paraphrasing the essential parts of other people's works without attribution, as well as declaring their own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

3.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

3.4.1. In general, the author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. The presentation of the same manuscript simultaneously in more than one magazine is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

3.4.2. In general, the author should not submit a previously published article to another journal.

3.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, translated) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and editors of interested journals can agree to a re-publication, which is necessarily the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work. Bibliographic indication of the first work should be presented in the second publication.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained from confidential sources (for example, during the review or evaluation of manuscripts for grants) should not be used without the explicit written permission of the authors of the work relating to confidential sources.

3.6. Authorship of publication

3.6.1. Authors of the publication can be only persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of work, the development, implementation or interpretation of the presented study. Anyone who has made a significant contribution, should be identified as co-authors. Where the research participants have made a significant contribution to a particular area in the research project, they should be listed in the footnote as individuals who have made a significant contribution to this study.

3.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, and also make sure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed with the submission her to the publication.

3.7. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having affected the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, receipt of fees, provision of expert opinions, patent applications or patent registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

3.8. Significant errors in published works. If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the scientific editor of the journal or the publisher about it and interact with them with a view to removing the publication or correcting the errors as soon as possible. If the editor or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to withdraw the work or fix the errors as soon as possible.

4. Obligation of the publisher

4.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the implementation of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher should be sure that the potential profit from the placement of advertising or the production of reprints has not affected the editors' decisions.

4.2. The publisher should support the editors of the journal in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published material and helping to interact with other journals and / or publishers, if this facilitates the performance of duties by editors.

4.3. The publisher should promote good practice in conducting research and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for recalling articles and correcting errors.