Ethical Rules


The ethical standards given here are the ones generally accepted by the world scientific community and are fully supported by the Editorial Board of the journal and its reviewers. The standards are binding for authors, reviewers and editors.

These standards are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications, the norms of the current legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of copyright, and international publishing standards. Editorial ethics of the journal is based on the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 70: Copyright), the Law of the Russian Federation On Mass Media and the Code of Conduct and Best Practices for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2011).

Principles of professional ethics of an author

  1. Originality of articles. Original, previously unpublished scientific articles are accepted for publication in the journal (except for expressly stated reprints of articles from other sources). The use of more than 10% of the author’s own text (Verbatim copying) is not recommended. The use of the author’s previously published text within 10% of the submitted article is possible with a mandatory reference to the publication.
  2. Inadmissibility of plagiarism. Plagiarism is a deliberate appropriation of the authorship of another person’s work or the use of another person’s work without reference to the author.

In the journal plagiarism involves both as verbatim copying and paraphrasing of someone else's text.

Borrowing over 10% of the submitted article from the work of another author is not allowed. When using borrowings, a reference to the source is mandatory. If a phrase is borrowed verbatim, it must be enclosed in quotation marks. When using borrowed figures, graphs and tables, a reference to the source is also required.

Plagiarism can be detected both at the stage of receiving the article by plagiarism detection software and at the stage of reviewing. All suspicions of plagiarism are thoroughly investigated. If plagiarism is detected, the article will not be accepted for publication.

  1. Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been previously sent to another journal and is under review, as well as an article that has already been published.

If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its review or after its publication, he/she should immediately notify the Editorial Board of the journal.

The consent of all authors to publication and execution of the license agreement is mandatory.

We wish to remind about civil, administrative and criminal liability for violation of copyright and related rights. If the process of reviewing, checking for "incorrect borrowings" and editing results in detecting plagiarism or falsified references to sources, the article will be removed from reviewing, and other articles by this author will not be accepted for reviewing. References to the author's own works, made by the author in order to artificially increase his/her impact factor in RSCI, are removed during editing.

Principles of professional ethics of the editor

  1. The editor should be guided by the principles of scientificity, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality.

The editor's interaction with the authors should rely on the principles of fairness, decency, objectivity, honesty and transparency.

  1. The editor's duty is to prevent situations when authors, reviewers or other subjects included in the process of publishing scientific articles show signs of unethical behavior, as well as to ensure the removal of publications of unscrupulous authors, which contain plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data, from scientific circulation.

Ethical principles of a reviewer

Reviewing articles is the responsibility of the Editorial Board of the journal. This means that the author of the article should not include any reviews as they will not be considered in any case.

  1. All manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board as well as ad hoc reviewers. Reviewing is blind, i.e. the author and reviewer are unknown to each other. All discussions are mediated by the Editor. If a conflict arises, another reviewer may be assigned to the article.
  2. The reviewer, as an expert acting on behalf of the Editorial Board, carries out scientific examination of the author's materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication, so his/her actions should be unbiased.
  3. The manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document, which should not be passed for review or discussion to third parties not authorized by the Editorial Board.

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the submitted research results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

  1. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review should not be used by the reviewer for personal use.
  2. A reviewer who, in his/her opinion, is not qualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the Editor and ask to be excluded from the review process of this manuscript.


Reviewing procedure

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles in the electronic journal is carried out in order to ensure a high scientific, theoretical and practical level of publications, selection of the most valuable and relevant (advanced) scientific works.

Principles of reviewing

  1. All articles to be published in the journal are reviewed.
  2. The Editorial Board selects reviewers with academic degrees, whose qualifications and research experience allow them to give a competent assessment of the manuscript.
  3. Articles are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of ethics (Ethics of Scientific Publications in GOSNIIR) adopted in the Institute.
  4. Reviews of manuscripts of scientific articles are stored in the editorial office of the journal for at least 5 years and can be presented at the request of the supervisory body.
  5. The Editor of the journal assigns the reviewer. Subsequent reviewing (control over the elimination of remarks) is carried out by the reviewer who conducted the initial review.

Terms of reviewing

  1. Reviewing of research materials, with consideration to the time required for the authors to revise the articles in accordance with the reviewers' comments, as well as for subsequent examination of manuscripts, can comprise one month or more.

Principles of material evaluation

  1. The reviewer evaluates the article according to the following criteria:
  • scientific level of the material (relevance, scientific novelty, theoretical/practical significance, problem statement, formulation of the conclusion and reasoning of conclusions, choice of sources);
  • level of presentation of the material (whether the title of the article corresponds to its content, whether the abstract corresponds to the content of the article, whether the size of the article corresponds to its content; choice of key words and phrases, logic, interrelation and quality of presentation of the material).
  1. If necessary, each case of evaluation is accompanied by a detailed commentary of the reviewer.
  2. Based on the results of evaluation, the reviewer makes a conclusion about the compliance of the scientific material with the requirements, the need for its revision or the possibility of publication.

The publication decision

  1. Based on the conclusions of the reviewers, the Editorial Board makes a decision:
  • to publish the scientific article;
  • to send the article for revision;
  • to reject the article.
  1. The adopted decision is brought to the author's attention.
  2. In case of sending for revision or rejection of the article, the author is provided with a copy of the review, recommendations for revision or a reasoned refusal.
  3. The author may disagree with some recommendations of the reviewer. In this case, he/she can prepare reasoned objections.