Publishing Ethics

  1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, editors, Reviewers, Publishers and Scientific society for the journal "Russia and America in the XXI century".

1.2. The publishing house not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all modern recommendations in the published work.

1.3. The publishing house undertakes the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Our journal programs provide an impartial "report" of the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility for the proper presentation of these "reports", especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications set out in this document.

  1. Editor’s Responsibilities

2.1. Decision to publish

The editor of the journal "Russia and America in the XXI century" is personally and independently responsible for the decision to publish, often in cooperation with the relevant Scientific society. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be at the heart of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "Russia and America in the XXI century", being limited to current legal requirements in respect of libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific society) during the decision to publish.

2.2. Decency

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.

2.3. Privacy

The editor and the Editorial Board are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other Scientific consultants and the Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (i.e., request a Co-editor, Associate editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of reviewing and deciding on their own) in the event of conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

2.5. Supervision of publications

The editor who provides convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are incorrect should inform the Publisher (and/or the relevant scientific society) with the aim of early notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant statements.

2.6. Research engagement and collaboration

The editor together with the Publisher (or Scientific society) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.

  1. Duties of reviewers

3.1. Influence on Editorial Board decisions

Peer review helps the Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is at the heart of the scientific approach. The publishing house shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are obliged to perform essential work on reviewing the manuscript.

3.2. Sense of duty

Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to do the work quickly should notify the editor of the journal and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.

3.3. Privacy

Any manuscript received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This work can’t be opened and discussed with any persons who do not have the authority of the Editor.

3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should Express their opinions in a clear and reasoned manner.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) previously published in the manuscript must have an appropriate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the scientific competence of the Reviewer.

3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

  1. Responsibilities of authors

4.1. Requirements to the manuscripts

4.1.1 The Authors of the original study report should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, the editorial point of View should be clearly indicated.

4.2. Data access and storage

Authors may be asked for raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by Editors. Authors should be willing to provide public access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if feasible, and in any case be willing to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors should make sure that the work is completely original and in case of use of works or statements of other authors should provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as author's to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work (without indicating authorship) and to claiming their own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

4.4.1 The Author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

4.4.2. In General, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.

4.4.3. The publication of a certain type of article (e.g., clinical recommendations, translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work.

4.5. Recognition of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the Express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the granting of grants, should not be used without the Express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of the publication

4.6.1 Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-Authors. Where study participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area in a research project, they should be listed as having made a significant contribution to the study.

4.6.2. The author should 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, that all co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

4.8. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having an impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, royalties, expert advice, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Significant errors in published works

If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author should inform the editor of the journal or the publisher and interact with the Editor in order to withdraw the publication or correct 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 correct the errors as soon as possible.

4.10. Based on the above, an already published article can be withdrawn (retracted) both at the initiative of the editorial Board and at the written request of the author in the following cases:

If there are grounds to consider the published information to be unreliable, arising either as a result of conscious actions (for example, falsification of data), or due to conscientious errors (for example, errors in calculations or experiments);

The conclusions contained in the article were previously published in another edition, and there are no proper references, permissions and justifications for the need for re-publication (that is, cases of duplicate publication);

The article reveals large incorrect borrowings (plagiarism);

The article describes unethical research.

4.11. A retracted article cannot be withdrawn from publication, but its status changes from" published "to "withdrawn".

  1. Duties of the Publisher

5.1 The Publisher shall follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profits from advertising or reprints did not affect the Editor's  decisions.

5.2. The publishing house should support the editors of the journal in addressing claims about the ethical aspects of the published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or Publishers, if this contributes to the performance of the duties of the Editors.

5.3. The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for removal and correction of errors.

5.4 The Publisher shall provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.

The section is based on the materials of Elsevier publishing house of scientific literature, as well as the materials of the International Committee on publication ethics (COPE)