The editorial board of the scientific journal "Vestnik of the East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia" follows the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and base their work on the recommendations developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as well as takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers
All parties involved in the process of reviewing and publishing a scientific article: editors, reviewers, authors, publishers are obliged to comply with ethical standards, norms and rules and to take all reasonable steps to prevent violations in order to avoid unfair practice in publishing activities (plagiarism, presentation of false information, etc.) and ensure high quality of scientific publications and public recognition of the scientific results. Compliance with the rules of scientific publication ethics by all parties contributes to ensuring the authors’ rights to intellectual property, improving the quality of publications and excluding the possibility of misuse of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.
The main terms used in this provision:
Ethics of scientific publications – a system of norms of professional conduct in the relationships of all parties (authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers) in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.
Author – a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of the publication providing the results of a scientific research.
Editor-in-chief – the final decision maker for the production and release of the journal.
Publisher – a legal entity that issues a scientific publication.
Scientific article – a complete and published author's manuscript.
Plagiarism – intended misappropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright and patent laws and may entail legal liability.
Editor – a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house preparing materials for publication as well as maintaining communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.
Editorial board – an advisory body of authoritative persons, who assists the editor-in-chief in the selection, preparation and evaluation of articles for publication.
Reviewer – an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Manuscript – an author's work submitted by the editor but not published.
Reader – any person reading published materials.
1. Ethical principles of the publisher
The publisher is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works which entails the following fundamental principles and procedures:
1.1. Facilitate the performance of ethical duties by the editorial board, editorial and publishing group, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.
1.2. Provide support to the editorial board of the journal in reviewing ethical claims of published material and help interact with other journals and / or publishers if this contributes to the duties of editors.
1.3. Ensure the confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any information until the moment of its publication.
1.4. Realize that the journal's activity is not a commercial project and is not aimed at making a profit.
1.5. Be ready to post corrections, clarifications, rebuttals and apologies when needed.
1.6. Provide the editorial board with the ability to exclude publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.
1.7. The publisher (editor) has the right to reject the manuscript or demand the author to revise it if it violates the rules adopted in this journal and agreed with the publisher.
1.8. The article, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyrights are reserved by the authors.
1.9. Post information about financial support for the research if the author provides such information to the article.
1.10. The editorial board undertakes all measures to eliminate content, grammatical, stylistic and other errors found .
1.11. Agree with the author on critical proofs introduced into the article.
1.12. The editorial board ensures timely publication of the journal.
2. Ethical principles of the author
The authors (or a group of authors), when submitting materials to the scientific journal "Vestnik of the East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia" realizes that they are initially responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research which implies compliance with the following principles:
2.1. The author (authors)of the article must provide reliable results of the research. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are not acceptable.
2.2. The author (authors) must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the primary source. Excessive borrowings, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformed quotations, paraphrasing or assigning rights to the results of someone else’s research, are unacceptable. The presence of borrowings without reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism.
2.3. The author (authors) should provide only true facts and information in the manuscript; provide sufficient information to verify and repeat experiments by other researchers; not use information obtained privately without open written permission; prevent fabrication and falsification of data.
2.4. The author (authors) should indicate in the cover letter that the article is being published for the first time. If some elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author must refer to the earlier work and indicate the differences between the new work and the previous one.
2.5. The author (authors) should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is under consideration as well as already published articles.
2.6. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons influenced the course of research, in particular, the article should contain references to works that were of importance in the conduct of the research.
2.7. The author (authors) should comply with ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on third party research.
2.8. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the study should be listed as co-authors of the article. It is unacceptable to include in the group of authors persons who did not participate in the study.
2.9. The author (authors) should respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and eliminate the indicated shortcomings or explain them reasonably.
2.10. The author (authors) should submit and complete the manuscript in accordance with the rules adopted in the journal.
2.11. If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication he must immediately notify the editorial board of the journal.
2.12. The author (authors) should provide proof of correctness of the original article to the editorial board or publisher, or correct the errors if the editorial board or publisher becomes aware of them from the third parties.
3. Ethical principles of the reviewer
The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the copyright materials, as a result of which his actions must be impartial and implement the following principles:
3.1. The manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for a review or discussion to third parties not entitled by the editorial office.
3.2. Reviewers must be aware that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or falsified.
3.3. The reviewer should draw the editor-in-chief's attention to the essential or partial similarity of the evaluated manuscript with any other work, as well as the facts of the absence of references to the statements, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of the authors.
3.4. The reviewer should note the corresponding published works that are not cited in the article.
3.5. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results and clearly substantiated recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
3.6. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective and aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.
3.7. The reviewer must make decisions based on specific facts and provide evidence of his decision.
3.8. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.
3.9. Reviewers have no right to take advantage of knowledge about the content of the work prior to its publication.
3.10. The reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must inform the editor to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript;
3.11. The review of the article is confidential. The full name of the reviewer is known by the executive secretary and the editor-in-chief of the journal. This information must not be disclosed.
4. Ethical principles of the editor-in-chief
The editor-in-chief is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which imposes the following fundamental principles:
4.1. The editor-in-chief is guided by the reliability of the presented material and scientific significance of the work in question.
4.2. The editor-in-chief should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.
4.3. Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and associated with possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for a personal gain.
4.4. The editor-in-chief should not allow the article to be published if there are sufficient grounds to consider it plagiarism.
4.5. The editor-in-chief must:
- constantly improve the journal;
- follow the principle of freedom of opinion;
- meet the needs of readers and authors of the journal;
- exclude the influence of the interests of business or politics on the decision to publish materials;
- make a decision on the publication of materials considering compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the presented article; clarity of presentation; reliability of the results and completeness of conclusions.
- take all reasonable measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information;
- take into account the recommendations of the reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of the article. Responsibility for the decision on publication falls entirely on the editorial board of the journal;
- justify the decision in case of acceptance or rejection of the article;
- provide the author of the reviewed material with an opportunity to substantiate his/her research position;
- keep to the decision of the previous members of the editorial board in case of their changing.
4.6. The editor-in-chief should consider claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, as well as take all necessary measures to restore violated rights in a conflict situation.
5. Guidelines for publishing articles
5.1. Compliance with publishing ethics by the editorial board.
5.2. Compliance with guidelines for rejecting articles.
5.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing.
5.4. Preventing harm to intellectual and ethical standards in the presence of commercial interests.
5.5. Willingness to post corrections, clarifications, rejections and apologies when needed.
5.6. Preventing the publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.
6. Conflict of interest
In order to avoid cases of publication ethics violation, a conflict of interests of all parties involved in the process of publishing the manuscript should be excluded. Conflicts of interest arise when an author, a reviewer, or an editorial board member has financial, scientific, or personal interrelationships that could affect their actions. Such relationships are called dual obligations, competing interests, or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal, each of the parties has the following responsibilities.
The editor is obliged:
- to transfer the manuscript for consideration to another member of the editorial board if the originally appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;
- to request information about the possibility of competing interests from all participants of the publishing process;
- to make a decision on the publication of the information specified in the author's letter concerning the conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may affect the assessment of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;
- to ensure the publication of amendments if the information on the conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.
The author is obliged:
- to indicate the place of work and the source of research funding.
The reviewer is obliged:
- to inform the editor-in-chief about the presence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and refuse to review the manuscript.
In the event of a situation involving a violation of publication ethics by an editor, an author or a reviewer, mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished material. The editorial board is obliged to demand explanation without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties.
If the material containing significant inaccuracies has been published, it must be promptly corrected in a form accessible to readers and indexing systems.