Publishing Ethics

The section is adapted from the materials of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


1.1. Publication of materials in reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communications but also makes significant contribution to development of the respective field of scientific knowledge. Thus it becomes important to set the standards of future ethical behaviour of all the parties involved in publication, in particular: for Authors, Editors of the journal, Reviewers, Publishing house, and Scientific society for the journal.

1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process but is also bearing responsibility for observance of all current recommendations in a publishing paper.

1.3. The publisher is undertaking obligations based on the strictest supervision of scientific materials, especially in terms of ethical aspects of publications set forth in this document.

2. Responsibilities of the Editors

2.1. Decision on publication

The Editor of the scientific journal is personally and independently bearing responsibility for decision-making on publication often in with the respective Scientific society. Veracity of a considered paper and its scientific significance should always underlie a decision about publication. The Editor can be guided by policy of the Editorial Board of the journal, being limited by relevant legal requirements with respect to denigration, a copyright, law, and piracy.

The Editor can consult with other Editors and Reviewers (or Scientific society officials) during decision-making about publication.

2.2. Morality

The Editor must estimate intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the Authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The Editor and the Editorial Board of the journal are obliged not to reveal without necessity information about the accepted manuscript to all the persons with an exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants, and the Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interests

2.4.1 Unpublished data received from manuscripts proposed for consideration cannot be used in personal studies without the Author's written agreement. Information or the ideas received in the course of review process and related to possible advantages must be kept confidential and not be used for the purpose of receipt of personal advantage.

2.4.2 Editors must take self-recusation from consideration of manuscripts (namely: to demand for a Co-editor, an Editor's Assistant or to cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board during consideration of work instead of personal review and decision-making) in case of conflicts of interests in consequence of competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with the Authors, companies, and, perhaps, with other organizations related to a manuscript.

2.5. Publication supervision

The Editor who provided convincing evidence of the fact that the assertions or the conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous must report the Publisher (and/or to the respective Scientific society) about it for the purpose of the shortest notification about making of changes, an publication exception, expression of concern, and other statements corresponding to a situation.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in the framework of research

The editor together with the Publisher (or the Scientific society) takes adequate retaliatory measures in a case of ethical complaints relating to addressed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures in common features include interaction with Authors of a manuscript and argumentation for a respective complaint or the requirement but they can also mean interactions with respective organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of the Reviewers

3.1. Influence on decisions of the Editorial Board

Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision on the publication and by means of respective interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of work.

3.2. Diligence

Any selected Reviewer feeling not enough qualification for consideration of a manuscript or not having enough time for fast implementation of the work must notify the Editor of the journal and ask to exclude him/her from the process of a respective manuscript being reviewed.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be regarded as a confidential document. This work may not be discovered and discussed with anybody not having authorities for that from the Editor.

3.4. Requirements for a manuscript and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. The reviewers should express their opinion clearly and in a well-argued manner.

3.5. Recognition of original sources

The Reviewers are to discover significant published works corresponding to a topic and not included in a bibliography to a manuscript. There should be a corresponding bibliographic link in the manuscript to any statement published previously. The reviewer should also pay the Editor's attention towards detection of a significant similarity or coincidence between an addressed manuscript and any other published work found in sphere of scientific competence of the Reviewer.

3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interests

3.6.1 Unpublished data received from manuscripts proposed for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the Author's written agreement. Information or the ideas received in the course of review process and related to possible advantages must be kept confidential and not be used for the purpose of receipt of personal advantage.

3.6.2. The reviewers must not participate in consideration of manuscripts in case of presence of conflicts of interests in consequence of competitive, joint and other interactions and relationship with any of the Authors, companies, or other organizations related to a presented work.

4. The responsibilities of the Authors

4.1. Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1 Authors of works about original scientific research should provide veracious results of a done work as well as objective discussion of significance of a study. Data underlying a work must be presented correctly. The work must contain enough evidence, reasoning, and bibliographic links for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are taken as unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. The reviews and the biographical articles must also be accurate and objective, the opinion they are owing to the Editorial Office is clearly denoted.

4.2. Data access and its storage

The unprocessed data related to a manuscript for being reviewed by the Editors can be demanded at the Authors.

4.3. Originality and piracy

4.3.1 Authors should make sure that a completely original work is presented and in a case the usage of works or statements of other Authors must provide corresponding bibliographic links or extracts.

4.3.2 Piracy can exist in many forms, from a presentation of other's work as author's one to copying or paraphrase of significant parts of other's works (without indication of authorship) even to proclaiming of the own rights for the results of other's studies. Piracy in all forms represents unethical actions and is unacceptable.

4.3.3. All the incoming papers are checked for plagiary. Besides, the layouts originals of all editions (including all digitized archives) are uploaded to the collection of Anti-Plagiat sources of Surgut State University, which helps to prevent the duplication of publications.

4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy, and simultaneity of publications

4.4.1 In a general case the Author should not publish a manuscript for the most part devoted to one and the same study in more than one journal as an original publication. Submission of one and the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is being taken as unethical behaviour and it is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In a general case the Author should not present a previously published article for consideration to the other journal.

4.4.3. The publication of a specific type of articles (for example, clinical recommendations, and translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases during observance of certain conditions. The Authors and the Editors of interested journals should agree to a secondary publication necessarily presenting the same data and interpretations as in a work of work's primary being published. The bibliography of a primary work must be introduced even in the second publication. In this case, the source is indicated, in which the paper had been published earlier.

4.4.4. All papers are checked in search engines of the Internet to identify ones having been published previously in other editions or with different authorship.

4.5. Recognition of original sources

Contribution of other people must always be recognized. The authors must refer to the publications which make a difference for accomplishment of a presented work. Data received unofficially, for example, in the course of a conversation, correspondence, or in the process of discussion with the third parties should not be used or submitted without a clear written original source authorization. Information received from confidential sources such as assessment of manuscripts or provision of grants should not be used without a clear written authorization of the Authors of a work related to confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of a publication

Only those who made significant contribution to formation of an idea of a work, development, fulfilment, or interpretation of a submitted study can be the Authors of a publication.

4.7. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interests

4.7.1 All the Authors are obliged to reveal in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interests which can be perceived as having impact on results or conclusions presented in a paper.

4.7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interests which are necessarily subjected to disclosure include work for hire, counselling, presence of equity property, receipt of fees, provision of expertise, a patent request, or registration of a patent, grants, and other financial security. The potential conflicts of interests must be revealed as early as possible.

4.8. Significant mistakes in published papers

 In case of detection by the Author of significant mistakes or lapses in publication, the Author should inform the Editor of the journal about it and interact with the Editor for the purpose of the fastest exception of publication or a correction. If Editor or the Publishing house have received information from the third party that publication contains significant mistakes, the Author is obliged to except the paper or correct mistakes in maximally short terms.