Scientific Bulletin of Public and Private Law ISSN 2618-1258 (Print)
ISSN 2618-1266 (Online)

Publication ethics

  • Печать
Подробности
Категория: Uncategorised
Опубликовано 19.06.2018 07:38
Автор: Super User
Просмотров: 6879

Ethical standards

The editorial board of the Scientific Bulletin of Public and Private Law maintains a certain level of requirements in the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the editorial board. These norms are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, accepted in the scientific community.

The editorial board encourages adherence to the principles of the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the principles of DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment).

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or to return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal's profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article in more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article constitute unethical conduct and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The editorial staff adheres to double-blind peer review to ensure that the manuscripts are evaluated objectively

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to do some work on the review.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand why their comments are based. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.

Commitment to DORA Principles

The editorial board supports and implements the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), aimed at ensuring fair, objective, and transparent evaluation of scientific research.

In its activities, the editorial board follows the principles below:

  • research is evaluated based on its content, scientific novelty, and significance rather than journal-based metrics;
  • the Journal Impact Factor is not used as a key criterion for assessing research quality;
  • a broad range of research performance indicators is considered, including both qualitative and quantitative measures;
  • openness, transparency, and reproducibility of research results are encouraged;
  • the contributions of all participants in the publication process are recognized.

The editorial board encourages authors, reviewers, and the wider academic community to adhere to DORA principles in order to enhance the quality and integrity of scholarly research.

Policy on Ethical Approval of Research

The editorial board requires strict compliance with ethical standards in the conduct of scientific research and the provision of proof of ethical approval in cases required by international regulations.

Research involving human participants must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and be approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB). Authors must state this approval in the article and confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Research involving animals must be conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of humane treatment, including the ARRIVE guidelines, and must be approved by the relevant ethical authorities.

When personal or sensitive data are used, authors must ensure lawful collection and processing in compliance with applicable legislation and ethical requirements.

The editorial board reserves the right to request additional documentation confirming ethical approval and may reject a manuscript if appropriate ethical justification is not provided.

Procedure for Handling Complaints on Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics Violations

The editorial board considers all complaints regarding possible violations of academic integrity and publication ethics in accordance with international standards, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Complaints must be submitted in written form and include a description of the alleged violation and, where possible, supporting evidence. All submissions are treated confidentially.

Upon receipt of a complaint, the editorial board conducts a preliminary assessment and, if necessary, involves experts and requests explanations from the parties concerned. During the review process, the peer-review or publication procedure may be suspended.

Based on the outcome of the review, the editorial board makes a decision in line with ethical standards, which may include rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, retraction of the article, or other appropriate measures.

The editorial board ensures an objective, impartial, and timely consideration of all complaints.

Retraction Policy for Published Articles

The editorial board follows a transparent and well-founded procedure for the retraction of published articles in accordance with international standards of publication ethics.

Retraction may be initiated in cases of serious violations, such as plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, significant errors affecting the reliability of results, authorship disputes, or breaches of research ethics.

The decision to retract an article is made by the editorial board after a full review of the circumstances, and where necessary, with the involvement of experts and clarification from the authors.

In the case of retraction, the article is not removed from the archive but is clearly marked as retracted, and an official notice is published stating the reasons. In cases of less severe issues, the editorial board may publish a correction or an expression of concern instead of a retraction.

The editorial board ensures an objective, impartial, and timely consideration of all cases, adhering to the principles of transparency and academic integrity.

Artificial Intelligence Use Policy

The editorial board recognizes the important role of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in scientific research and scholarly publishing, while emphasizing the need for their responsible, ethical, and transparent use.

The use of AI tools (including for text generation, data analysis, translation, or editing) is permitted under the following conditions:

  • authors must clearly disclose the fact and extent of AI use in the preparation of the manuscript;
  • artificial intelligence cannot be listed as an author or co-author of a scientific paper;
  • authors bear full responsibility for the content of the article, the accuracy of the data, and the validity of the conclusions;
  • the use of AI must not result in violations of academic integrity (including plagiarism or data fabrication);
  • results generated with the assistance of AI must be carefully verified for accuracy and scientific validity.

The editorial board may use AI tools for auxiliary purposes (e.g., text checking or technical editing); however, all decisions regarding peer review and publication are made exclusively by human editors.

Procedure for Peer Review and Manuscript Processing

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure, in which anonymity is maintained for both authors and reviewers. The review process is carried out in accordance with international standards, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Independent experts with relevant academic qualifications, research experience in the manuscript’s subject area, and no conflicts of interest with the authors are invited to review submissions. Reviewers are required to adhere to principles of confidentiality and academic integrity.

During the review process, the following criteria are taken into account:

  • scientific originality and relevance of the study;
  • methodological soundness;
  • validity and accuracy of results;
  • clarity and coherence of presentation and conclusions;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope and formatting requirements.

The peer review process typically takes between 2 and 4 weeks, although the duration may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.

Reviews are submitted in written form (via the editorial system or email) and include reasoned comments and recommendations regarding publication.

Based on the reviews received, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

  • accept the manuscript for publication;
  • accept with revisions;
  • send for re-review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations. Authors are informed of the outcome along with reviewers’ comments and suggestions.