Ethics of scientific publications
Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of journals in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE).
1. Responsibilities of authors 1.1. The author submitting the manuscript for consideration to journals confirms that it is original, that is, it has not been published previously in other publications in its current or similar form and is not under consideration in another journal. If the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, or working material, the editorial office should be notified.
1.2. The list of authors includes only persons who have made a significant contribution to the research and all of them confirm their consent to submit the manuscript to the journal. At the same time, the author who maintains contact with the editorial board does not make sole decisions and notifies all his co-authors about possible corrections in the article.
1.3. Authors should present the results of their research honestly, without fabrication, falsification or unfair manipulation of data.
1.4. The authors guarantee the absence of plagiarism in any form in the work; in the case of using the works or statements of other persons, the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.
1.5. Authors should avoid self-plagiarism and correctly refer to their previous works. The presentation of the same data in several publications, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of the author's own works are unacceptable. 1.6. Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest (including grants and other financial support) that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
1.7. In case of detection of significant errors or inaccuracies in his already published work, the author must promptly notify the editorial board and make a joint decision with it on the possible form of their correction
2. Responsibilities of reviewers
2.1. Reviewing helps the editor to make an adequate decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the authors can help the author to improve the quality of the 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 should also participate in reviewing other people's manuscripts.
2.2. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor in a timely manner and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
2.3. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor.
2.4. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.
2.5. Reviewers should pay attention to significant gaps in the lists of used literature on this subject. On the other hand, any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer's scientific competence.
2.6. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used by the reviewer in his own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
2.7. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors or other organizations related to the submitted work.
3. Duties of editors 3.1. The editor is independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal. The decision to publish should always be based on the scientific content of the work in question, its scientific significance and reliability.
The editor makes honest and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensures an honest and effective review process. 3.2. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.
3.3. The Editor guarantees the confidentiality of the review process and does not work with manuscripts in respect of which he has a conflict of interest.
3.4. Editors resolve conflict situations arising in the course of work and use all available means to resolve them.
3.5. The editor, who has received convincing evidence that a gross violation of ethical standards or erroneous statements or conclusions took place in the published article, should inform the publisher about this in order to notify the publisher as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal (retraction) of the publication, expression of concern and other actions relevant to the situation.
4. Publisher's Responsibilities 4.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that his general attitude towards earning income has not influenced the editors' decisions.
4.2. The publisher should support the editors of the journal in considering claims to the ethical aspects of the published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers, if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of the editors.
4.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement best practices in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for revoking articles and correcting errors.
5. Review (retraction) of articles
When considering situations related to the withdrawal (retraction) of articles, the editorial board and the publisher of journals are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and HENRI Ethics Council (The rule of revocation (retraction) of the article from publication ).
Grounds for revocation of the article:
— detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value
— duplication of publications in several editions
— detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication
The article may be withdrawn at the official request of the authors who have explained the reason for their decision, as well as at the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher on the basis of their own expertise. In the latter case, an official letter is sent to the author (or the lead author as part of the team of authors) with information about the reasons for the withdrawal of the article.
After the review, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as withdrawn. The same note is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been withdrawn.
The editorial board publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article indicating the reasons and the date of retraction on the official website of the journal and in the next print issue.
Information about the review of the article and its PDF version with the appropriate labeling are sent to the NEB (elibrary.ru ) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also transmitted to the HENRI Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications for inclusion in a Single database of retracted articles.
• Limited Liability Company "University of Additional Professional Education"
Publication in the journal is free for authors.
The editorial board does not charge the authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.
Disclosure Policy and conflicts of interest
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author.
Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case 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 submitted work.
Borrowing and plagiarism
The editorial Board of the journals "Industrial Economics", "Journal of Applied Research", "Applied Economic Research", "Innovative Economics: Information, Analytics, forecasts", "Regional and Sectoral Economics" and "Journal of Monetary Economics and Management" when reviewing an article can verify the material using the Anti-plagiarism. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the rules COPE.
Preprint and Postprint Placement Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in other scientific journals. When referring to an article published in journals, the publisher asks you to post a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Articles previously published by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are allowed to be considered.