Nav view search



Admiral Ushakov            

Maritime State University            



Publication Ethics


Rules for cooperation with the editors (responsibility of the parties) are based on the provisions of CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS. Before submitting the manuscript, authors should carefully read the terms and conditions and responsibly comply with them from the moment the manuscript is submitted to the editor. In the process of cooperation, no one's copyrights should be violated.

1. Ethical principles that should guide the author of a scientific publication

Submission of an article for consideration by the editors implies that it contains new scientific results obtained by the author (a team of authors), which have not been published anywhere before.

Authors should be aware that they are personally responsible for the provided text of the manuscript, which implies compliance with the following principles:

1.1. provide reliable results of the work or research done;

1.2. participate in the process of peer review of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may request from authors the original data of a scientific article for editorial review, and authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and in any case should be ready to retain the original materials for a reasonable period of time after their publication;

1.3. ensure that the research results presented in the manuscript are independent and original work. The author must submit a report on the results of checking the article in the plagiarism detection system. The originality of the article must be at least 75%. In case of using fragments of other people's works and / or borrowing the statements of other authors, the article must contain appropriate bibliographic references with the obligatory indication of the author and the source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including loose quotations, paraphrasing, or appropriation of the results of other people's research, are unethical and unacceptable actions. Articles being compiled of materials previously published by other authors are not accepted for publication without their creative processing and the author's own comprehension;

1.4. be aware that they bear the initial responsibility for the originality, novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research;

1.5. recognize the contribution of all individuals who one way or another have influenced the course of the study or determined its nature. In particular, the article should contain bibliographic references to Russian and foreign publications that were of importance while conducting the research. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used without explicit written permission from their source. All sources must be disclosed;

1.6. submit an original manuscript that has not been submitted to another journal or publisher and is not currently under review, as well as an article that has not previously been published in another journal. Failure to comply with this principle is regarded as a major violation of the publication ethics and lays the case open to remove the article from peer review. The text of the article must be original, that is, it must be presented for publication for the first time. If any part of the manuscript was previously used in another published article, the authors are required to refer to the earlier publications and indicate what is the essential difference between the new study and the previous one. Word-for-word copying or paraphrasing of one's own publications is unacceptable. They can only be used as a basis for new conclusions;

1.7. provide a correct coauthors’ list of the article.  All researchers who have made a significant intellectual contribution to its concept, structure, as well as to the conduct and interpretation of its results should be mentioned. Other individuals who have contributed to some aspects of the study should be praised. The author must also ensure that all coauthors are familiar with the final version of the article, approve it and agree with its submission for publication. All authors listed in the article should bear responsibility for the content. If the article is a multidisciplinary research, the coauthors may be responsible for their personal contributions, holding collective accountability for the overall results. Among the coauthors, it is unacceptable to indicate individuals who did not participate in the study;

1.8. in case a significant mistake or inaccuracy is discovered in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, immediately notify the editorial and publishing staff and make a joint decision to recognize the mistake and / or correct it as soon as possible. If the editorial and publishing staff find that the article contains significant mistakes, the author is obliged to remove or correct them immediately, or provide evidence of the validity of the information provided;

1.9. indicate in your manuscripts all sources of funding for the research, declare possible conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the study, their interpretation, as well as the judgments of the reviewers.

2. Ethical principles in the reviewer's activity

The reviewer carries out a scientific expert analysis of the author's materials that’s why he must use an unbiased approach, which includes observing the following principles:

2.1. The purpose of the scientific assessment is to improve the quality of the material and make a final decision on the possibility of its publication.

2.2. The reviewer who does not consider him/herself a specialist in the field of the manuscript or is aware that he/she would be unable to provide the review in due time should notify the Editor-in-Chief of it and abstain from reviewing.

2.3. The author or coauthor of the manuscript cannot be the reviewer as well as academic advisors of post-graduate students and/or those working together with the author in the same department.

2.4. Any manuscript received from the editor for reviewing is confidential. It should not be discussed with someone else but with those mentioned by the Editor-in-Chief.

2.5. The reviewer is to be free of prejudices. Personal remarks to the author are not allowed. The reviewer’s opinion is to be expressed clearly and reasonably.

2.6. Whenever possible, the reviewer should identify significant publications that have relevance to the subject of the manuscript being reviewed but have not been referenced. Any statement, made by the reviewer that an observation, a conclusion or an argument in the manuscript reviewed has been reported elsewhere, should be supported by an exact reference. The reviewer should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or partial-match between the manuscript being reviewed and any other publication that has come to his or her attention.

2.7. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the articles submitted to him for a review for personal gain, while respecting the confidentiality of this information and ideas.

2.8. Reviewer should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Principles of professional ethics in the activity of the editorial, editing and publishing staff and editorial board.

In their activity, the staff of the editing and publishing staff and editorial board members of the scientific journal issue are responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, hence they should comply with the following basic principles:

3.1. While making a decision the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal issue shall be guided by reliability of presented data and by scientific importance of reviewed materials.

3.2. The editor-in-chief should not have any conflict of interest concerning articles that he rejects or accepts.

3.3. The editor-in-chief of the scientific journal issue is responsible for decision which of the articles, submitted to the scientific journal issue all be accepted for publication and which shall be rejected. Thus, he shall be guided by the policy of the scientific journal issue and observes legal restraints, avoiding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. While making decision the journal editor-in-chief may consult with the editorial board members and reviewers.

3.4. The editor-in-chief should assess the manuscript exclusively according to its scientific content and regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status and political views of the manuscript authors.

3.5. The editor-in-chief, staff of the editing and publishing staff and editorial board members of the scientific journal issue should not disclose any information on the article submitted to the collected volume to anyone, except the author(s), appointed and potential reviewers, other editorial staff and, if necessary, the publisher.

3.6. The unpublished data received from manuscripts presented for reviewing should not be used by the editor-in-chief, editorial staff, editing and publishing staff or members of the editorial board for personal purposes or be transferred to the third parties (without written approval of the author).

3.7. The editor-in-chief should not let the information be published if there are enough reasons to believe that it is plagiarism.

3.8. If the article is accepted for publication, it becomes a public domain; copyrights remain with the authors.

3.9. The editor-in-chief and the publisher should not ignore the claims concerning reviewed manuscripts or published materials. In the event of a conflict, they should take all the necessary measures for restoration of violated rights, and at detection of mistakes - to promote publication with corrections or rebuttals.

3.10. The editor-in-chief, staff of the editing and publishing staff and editorial board of the printed publication should keep confidential the names and the other information about reviewers. If necessary, a new reviewer is invited and he may be informed about the names of the previous reviewers.

3.11. On the recommendation of the editorial council, a member of the editorial board and/or a reviewer may be excluded from the staff of the editing and publishing staff of the scientific journal issue for violating standards and rules of scientific publications ethics.

4. Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the publisher

A publisher is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works that’s why it is necessary to follow the fundamental principles and procedures:

4.1. Contribute to the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by the staff of the editing, the editorial and publishing staff, the editorial board, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.

4.2. Provide support to the editorial and publishing staff of the scientific journal issue dealing with claims about the ethical aspects of published materials and associate in interaction with other journals and / or publishers, if it contributes to the performance of the duties of editors.

4.3. Ensure the confidentiality of any information received from the authors of publications until it is published.

4.4. Be aware that the activity of the scientific journal issue is not a commercial project and does not have any purpose of making a profit.

4.5. Be sure that the potential profit from advertising does not influence the decision of the editors to accept the article for publication.

4.6. Always be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, rebuttals and apologies when necessary.

4.7. Provide the editorial and publishing staff of the scientific journal issue with the opportunity to exclude publications containing plagiarism and unreliable information.