Scientific professional edition

Ethical policy of the magazine

The editorial policy of the collection of scientific works “Scientific Herald of the Izmail State University of Humanities” is aimed at observance of ethical norms, accepted by the international scientific community.

The activities of the editorial board in this area are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics), as well as the valuable experience of authoritative international journals and publishing houses.

An important condition for the adoption of an article to print is the availability of new original scientific results that have never been published anywhere.

If the materials have already been published earlier, the author should provide a bibliographic reference for previous publications and justify the relevance of the publication of the new version, explaining the nature of the addenda and changes made to the last version of the article.

Any controversial issues (financial, academic, personal, etc.) are carefully considered by members of the editorial board. In the event of confirmation of suspicion associated with possible plagiarism or falsification of results, the article is unconditionally rejected.

The magazine allows authors to keep copyright without limitations.

All publishing ethics relationships that arise between the authors and the editorial board of the magazine and not regulated by this document are governed by international generally accepted standards of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

1. Ethical obligations of the editorial board

Publication decision. The editor-in-chief of the collection of scientific works “Scientific Herald of the Izmail State University of Humanities” is responsible for deciding on the articles submitted for publication in the collection. Checking the work on the relevance of the topic and its importance for researchers and readers should always be the main factors influencing the decision to publish the article. The editor-in-chief must be governed by the editorial policy of the collection, and his decision must be based on the provisions of the law prohibiting copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief can consult other members of the editorial board to make a decision.

The principle of honest game. The editor and editorial board must evaluate the manuscripts for their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views of the author.

Confidentiality The editor-in-chief and all editorial staff are not entitled to disclose information about the works provided to anyone other than the author, reviewer, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher.

Disclosure of information and conflict of interest. Unpublished materials used in the given manuscript should not be used in their own research by the editor-in-chief without the written consent of the author. Closed information or ideas received during a review must remain confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor-in-chief must declare himself (assign the deputy editor-in-chief or another member of the editorial board to consider the manuscript instead) regarding the consideration of the manuscript, in connection with which he has a conflict of interest as a result of competitive relations, cooperation or other relations and relationships with one from authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions related to the provided manuscripts. The editor-in-chief must require all participants in the process of disclosing the relevant competing interests and publishing amendments if the competition of interests has been identified after publication. Other appropriate measures, such as publication of refutation or apology, should be taken as necessary.

Participation and cooperation in the investigation. When submitting an ethical complaint regarding a given manuscript or published article, the editor-in-chief must take objective and appropriate measures. Such measures usually include contact with the author of the manuscript or article and due consideration of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also require recourse to relevant institutions and research organizations. If the complaint is supported, you should post the corrections, rebuttal or apologies. Any notice of the fact of unethical behavior should be considered, even if it came after years after publication.

2. Etiquette of authors

Reporting Standards. The authors of the reports on the results of original research should provide an accurate report on the work performed, as well as objectively report on its significance. The data based on research should be clearly stated in writing. The article should contain enough information and a reference to the source, which will allow others to use a specific job. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements are equated with unethical behavior and are inappropriate. An overview of articles and special publications should also be accurate and objective, and the editorial “angle of view” should be clearly defined.

Access and save data. Authors may ask to provide original data for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide free access to such data, if available, and in any case should be prepared to store this data for 3 years after they are published.

Originality and plagiarism. Authors should submit only fully original works, and if the authors used works and / or other people’s speeches, they should be duly executed in the form of quotations. There are various forms of plagiarism, for example, the “publication” of someone else’s article for their own, copying or paraphrasing a large part of someone else’s text (without specifying authorship), assignment of research results conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is regarded as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, repetitive and competing publications. The author should not publish an article that essentially describes the same research as in the previous publication or print it in more than one journal. Submitting the same article to more than one magazine at the same time is regarded as unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The author should not submit to the collection previously published articles.

Confirmation of sources. You always need to correctly represent the work of other authors. The authors should refer to publications that have made a fundamental impact on the definition of the nature and nature of the work presented. Privately received information through private conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used without obtaining an open written permission from its source. Also, information obtained when providing / receiving confidential services, such as lawsuits or grant applications, should not be used without the written permission of the provider of these services.

Authorship of work. The authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, implementation or interpretation of the claimed research. All those who made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors. Those who participated in some essential aspects of the research project should be included in the list of project participants. The author should ensure that the names of all co-authors are specified in the article and no one who is not a co-author is attributed to them, that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the scientific work, as well as have agreed to publish it.

Disclosure of information and conflict of interest. All authors should disclose in their work information on any financial and other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the research or their interpretation. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of possible conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include: employer information, information counseling, shareholding, fees, fees for experts, patent applications / registrations, as well as grants and other types of financing. All potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

Significant errors in published works. If the author finds a material error or inaccuracy in his published work, he must immediately notify the editor or publisher of the collection and provide them with assistance in eliminating or correcting the error. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains material errors, the author must immediately remove or correct them, or provide proof of correctness of the original article.

3. The ethical responsibilities of reviewers

The journal policy to the main ethical standards that should be governed by the subjects of the review process, includes the following:

1. Qualification. In case of an uncertainty of the reviewer that his qualification corresponds to the level and direction presented in the research article, he should immediately refuse to review.

2. Objectivity. The aim of the reviewer is to objectively evaluate the quality of the article and determine its level of compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. In the process of review, the narrow interests of individuals should be offset and the intellectual independence of the authors should be respected.

3. Copyright. To ensure the right of each author to the intellectual property of the reviewer, any use of the arguments received and conclusions of the author is prohibited without the permission of the latter.

4. Conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest between the results of the research with the personal development of the reviewer or the presence of such professional or personal links between the reviewer and the author, which may affect the judgment of the reviewer, he must return the article, indicating a conflict of interest.

5. Confidentiality. Priority is given to the confidentiality of a peer-reviewed article, for which the reviewer is forbidden to disclose information from the article or to discuss unpublished conclusions and recommendations of the author with other colleagues (except in the case where the reviewer needs someone’s special consultation, which requires the permission of the editorial board).

6. Validity. The seriousness of the charge of plagiarism requires the reviewer to provide an adequate and reasoned justification for his own comments. Any allegation of the presence of plagiarism or biased quoting should be accompanied by a relevant reference (the reviewer’s findings should not be defamatory or discrediting the author without the existence of serious grounds for doing so).

7. Collaboration. If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, he must apply to the editorial board for a collective review of the author’s article.

8. Principle of fair play. Since the reviewer should mark any cases of inadequate citation by the authors of the work of other scholars working in the field of the reviewed article, comments on the insufficient quoting of their own research by the reviewer are identified as biased.

9. Discipline. Support for the periodic publication of a scientific journal requires a reviewer of high self-discipline, which is disclosed through the timely provision of a review of the article and in respect of the authors of the article (in the case of inability to provide authors or systematic submission of low-quality reviews or violation of deadlines for the submission of reviews of the relationship with the reviewer is discontinued).

10. Relevance of research. By refusing the reviewer to use or disclose unpublished information or argument to the author, it is not considered contradictory to the ethical rules of termination of some of his own research reviewers, if they, in his opinion, become futile.