The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for FEFU: School of Engineering Bulletin
(based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Elsevier recommendations)
The FEFU: School of Engineering Bulletin is based on the traditional ethical principles of the Russian scientific periodicals. It sticks to the Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications formulated by the Committee of Publication Ethics (Moscow, Russia) with due regard for ethical standards of the publishers’ and editors’ work which is stated in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers drawn up by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Responsible research publication: international standards for editors; Responsible research publication: international standards for authors) as well as on the recommendations of Elsevier.
These ethics include the editor following certain rules on relations with readers, authors, and reviewers as well as procedures for handling complaints.
The sources contain the principles which are to protect the authors from the abuse of power on the side of the publishers.
1. Publishing ethics issues of journal
The publishers of FEFU: School of Engineering Bulletin, the Editorial Board, reviewers and authors (further – Journal), aspire to maintain high ethical standards regarding publication of articles received by Editorial Board.
1.1. The Journal pursues the following policies
To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
The publications should be ultimate in clearness, completeness and fairness. The scientific community should clearly realize why one or the other of the scientific works has been done, who and how has performed it and what its contribution to the existing knowledge is.
The original warranty: that their articles must contain the original material which is not a plagiarism and has not been published earlier.
The journal is always ready be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Is excluded: preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Any article published in the journal or any part of it may be disseminated through electronic network but the journal must be necessarily referred to as the original source.
1.2. Reject an article
The editorial board reserves the right to withdraw the published articles if it emerges that someone’s rights or generally accepted standards of scientific ethics have been violated. The author who submitted the article and the organization in which he or she works will be informed about the withdrawal.
1.3. Forbidden to publish same research in more than one journal
Forbidden:
- Self-plagiarism: a repetitive publication of one’s own material published earlier in another journal without references to the earlier version.
- Dubbing publication: publishing the same article in one journal and, after that, in another one without necessary references and permission.
1.4. List of references, practice citation
To guarantee full and exact citing of scientific works used while carrying out researches and writing the article.
You need to specify data source and to duplicate it in the list of references (the literally taken text has to be quoted) or to express gratitude to the author of elements used in article;
You need to guarantee full and exact citing of scientific works used while carrying out researches and writing the article.
1.5. The sources of financing
The sources of financing should be revealed in order to avoid eventual conflicts of interests (e.g., that of consulting or financial interest of a certain company which could have been affected by the results that the published article contains).In other words, to specify funding source o f scientific work in manuscript and forewarn about conflict of interests.
To handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
1.6. No plagiarism, no fraudulent data
Unacceptable: Plagiarism: the submission of a work containing materials taken from the works of other authors.
The positive decision on the publication being taken, the editor is to be certain that the submitted manuscript contains no unfair, false and/or unscrupulous data, unoriginal information, false references and claims, that the material contains no data repeatedly published earlier, and the authorship has not been claimed unjustifiably.
The Editorial Board must be assured that the authors (researches) present the results of their work clearly, fairly and without falsifications.
2. Author's responsibilities
The authors bear the responsibility for the content of their articles and the very fact of their publication. They should be guided by the following principles.
2.1. Authors and peer review process
All authors obliged to participate in peer review process. Reviewing manuscripts being an important stage of the publication process and, correspondingly, of the realization of scientific method as such, every scientist should assume the obligation of reviewing scientific articles. At the same time – allowed the reviewers undesirable for the author will not be engaged except when the editor has a reason stronger than of the author to do that.
Any hazards and risks that the performance of the work involved the authors should be necessarily mentioned in the article. Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to international and Russian laws and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate; should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.
2.2. The significantly contributed to the research of all authors
The authors must not infringe the copyright of other persons.
Not acceptable improper citation of related works by other authors.
Authors have to specify that their work is published for the first time. If manuscript elements were used earlier in other article, including publications in FEFU: School of Engineering Bulletin authors should to make references to earlier publication, including materials of conferences, presentations from seminars, etc.
Thus it is necessary to specify essential difference between works and to reveal connection with results of researches and conclusions presented in previous work. Literal copying of own works and their rephrasing are unacceptable, they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions.
The authorship of the research work must belong only to those individuals who contributed to its having been performed and described in the article.
The author submitting the manuscript for publication bears responsibility that only those individuals are added to the list of the authors, who conform to the authorship criterion. If the article has several authors, it is the one that submits it to the editorial board together with his/her contact information and documents and corresponds with the editors assumes the responsibility for the consent of the rest of the authors to publish it in the journal.
The co-authors are all those who have contributed much to the submitted research work and who share the responsibility for the obtained results. If there are some other persons who provided a useful guide to preparing the article, they should be mentioned in notes or in the section Acknowledgments.
The deceased persons who comply with the above-stated criteria are to be included into the list of the authors, the date of their death being specified in a note.
The administrative relations with the ones carrying out a research work do not provide the administrative person reason enough to be included in the list of the co- authors. However, in individual cases, it may be pertinent to mention the administrative assistance rendered in the course of the work.
2.3. Confirmation of data authenticity
The research work must be performed in accordance with the ethic and juridical standards.
The authors (researches) present the results of their work clearly, fairly and without falsifications.
The authors are obliged to strictly observe the requirement that their articles must contain the original material which is not a plagiarism and has not been published earlier.
The authors bend their every effort to present the methodology of their experimental work clearly and unequivocally so that its results could be confirmed by others scientists.
The author should cite the publications which had a decisive impact on the essence of the presented research work as well as those through which the reader can easily be introduced to earlier works essential to comprehend the given research.
2.4. Error correction
All authors are obliged to respond to the reviewer's comments, as well as to correct errors that have seen a person involved in the preparation of the manuscript (or report them).
The author should be publish corresponding information on the error and, if possible, correct it.
2.5. Conflicts of interest
Authors should declare any conflicts of interest at any stage during the publication process.
3. Peer review and responsibility for the reviewers
3.1. The confidentiality
Reviewed articles in the Scientific Electronic Journal FEFU: School of Engineering Bulletin is confidentially. The name of the expert reviewing the work remains unknown to the author.
The reviewer treats the manuscript submitted for reviewing as a confidential document. It should not be shown to other persons or discussed with colleagues except special cases when the reviewer needs someone’s particular consultation. The reviewer have to remember that the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and contain information not subject to disclosure. Copies of articles are not allowed to do.
3.2. Objective and timely
The reviewer is obliged to objectively appraise the manuscript, its experimental and/or theoretical aspects, the interpretation of the data presented in it and to conclude if the work is consistent with the high scientific and literary standards, often using their own evaluation criteria.
The peer reviewers check a number of issues in the manuscript including assessing the validity of the research methodology and procedures. They would also be vigilant for any unethical practice in the research or plagiarism.
If appropriate, they may recommend revisions and re‐submission of an article. In other cases they may recommend rejection for various reasons.
Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
Should submit comment on time.
3.3. Rejection of the review (conflict of interest and law aspects)
The reviewer is to give back the manuscript immediately in the following cases:
- if she or he is not competent in the research field presented in the manuscript;
- reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders; It means that the reviewer may not review manuscripts, whose author or co-authors are linked with him/her personally or professionally, especially if those links can exert a certain influence on the reviewer’s conclusion;
- if there is an undoubted similarity between the reviewed manuscript and another article published or considered in some other journal.
The reviewer is conscious of the possibility of a conflict of interests in cases when the reviewed manuscript is closely connected with the actual or published work of the reviewer himself. If there are any doubts, the reviewer gives back the manuscript without a review pointing to the conflict of interests.
3.4. Keeping reviews
Reviews are stored in the version for 5 years.
4. The ethical obligations of the editor
4.1. Responsibilities and powers
Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals.
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
The editor considers all the manuscripts submitted for publication and appraises each of them without regard to the author’s racial, sexual orientation, ethnic or religious identity as well as his/her position and workplace.
Only accept a paper when reasonably certain. The positive decision on the publication being taken, the editor is to be certain that the submitted manuscript contains no unfair, false and/or unscrupulous data, unoriginal information, false references and claims, that the material contains no data repeatedly published earlier, and the authorship has not been claimed unjustifiably.
4.2. Reject manuscripts
The editor may reject manuscripts without having them peer reviewed if they do not comply with the subject area of the journal and do not conform to the article requirements.
Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.
The editor: when errors are found, promote publication of correction or retraction.
If there is a convincing proof that the basic content or the conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should publish corresponding information on the error and, if possible, correct it. The information should be signed by the person who has discovered the error or by some independent author.
The editor of a journal is reliant on its reviewers to offer guidance on whether to accept or reject an article.
4.3. Anonymity
The editor should preserve anonymity of reviewers.
5. Publishing ethics issues (editorial practice)
5.1. Objectivity
Judgments as well as decisions on the complaints of authors should be objective.
5.2. Actions in violation of ethical standards
Violations of ethical standards, examples:
- fraud: the presentation of falsified results, concealment or arbitrary change of data;
- dubbing of submitted manuscripts: the submission of the same manuscript to another journal before the final decision is taken by the editor of the journal which was the first to accept it for consideration;
- a simultaneous submission of two articles with closely related in contents without the needful cross-citing;
- dubbing publication: publishing the same article in one journal and, after that, in another one without necessary references and permission;
- inadequate citing of related works of other authors;
- plagiarism: the submission of a work containing materials taken from the works of other authors;
- self-plagiarism: a repetitive publication of one’s own material published earlier in another journal without references to the earlier version.
Should the facts of misconduct be revealed, the editors have the right to impose sanctions on the authors. The range of the sanctions is rather wide varying from a strict warning to the author to the ban on the submission of his/her articles for a certain period in the future.
The editor may call attention of the editors of the journals of related subject area to violation of the ethical standards and to release the information about it together with the names of those whose misconduct has been established and the sanctions applied to them.
It is up to the editors to take a decision on the types of sanctions to be applied in each concrete case.
In the most difficult situations, the members of the editorial board may be called as advisers on condition that the process of taking decision does not take too much time.
5.3. Keeping documents
The documents and correspondence related to various cases of violation of ethical standards will be kept for three years.