The section is based on the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The Editorial Board of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” in its work is guided by the provisions of chapter 70 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Copyright”, adheres to international standards of ethics of scientific publications developed and approved by International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and takes into account valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers.
Editorial board of the journal does its best to comply with ethical norms adopted by international scientific community and to prevent any violations of these norms, both in their own work and in their relations with all participants of scientific publications process: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors, and readers.
1.1. Publication of materials in reviewed journals is not only a simple method of scientific communication but it also makes significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge.
Thus, it is important to establish standards for future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and Scientific Society for the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal.
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process, but also is responsible for complying with all current recommendations in published work.
1.3. The publisher is committed to strict supervision of scientific content. Our journal programs provide an unbiased "report" on the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility for proper presentation of these "reports", especially in the terms of ethical aspects of the publications set out in this document.
2.1. Decision on publication
The editor of the scientific journal “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” is personally and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, often in collaboration with relevant Scientific Society, namely the Editorial Board. Reliability of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always be the basis of the decision on publication. The editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal "Yearbook the IARHCRG" being limited by the current legal requirements in respect of libel, copyright, legality, and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other members of the Editorial Board while deciding on a publication.
The Editor is obliged to evaluate intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
The Editor and the Editorial Board of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal should not unnecessarily disclose information on the accepted manuscript to anybody, except for Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants, and the Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data from the manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal studies without author's written consent. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not be used for personal profit.
2.4.2 Editors should make recusal from reviewing manuscripts (i.e., apply to Co-Editor, Assistant Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of reviewing and deciding on the work themselves) in the event of conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.
2.5. Supervision of Publications
The Editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous, must inform the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) for the purpose of early notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other statements relevant to the situation.
2.6. Engagement and Collaboration in Research
The Editor, together with the Publisher (or The Scientific Society), is responding appropriately to ethical claims relating to the manuscripts reviewed or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
3.1. Impact on the Editorial Board Decisions
Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision about publication and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications; it is in the "heart" of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the point of view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to perform substantial work on reviewing the manuscript.
3.2. Sense of Duty
Any selected Reviewer who feels himself not qualified to review the manuscript or who do not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal and ask to exclude him from the process of reviewing the relevant manuscript.
Any manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with any persons unless authorized to do so by the Editor.
3.4. Manuscript Requirements and Objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.
3.5. Recognition of Primary Sources
Reviewers have to look for significant published works that are relevant to the topic of manuscript and have not been included in its bibliography. The manuscript should contain corresponding bibliographic reference to any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier.
The Reviewer must also draw the Editor’s attention to the discovery of significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is within scientific competence of the Reviewer.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data from the manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal studies without author's written consent. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not be used for personal profit.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in reviewing of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work.
4.1. Manuscripts Requirements
4.1.1 The authors of the report on the original study should provide reliable results of the work done as well as arrange an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data behind the work should be represented unmistakably. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, and should clearly state the Editorial's point of view.
4.2. Originality and plagiarism
4.2.1 Authors should ensure that they have submitted a fully original work and, in the case of use of other Authors' works or statements, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or extracts.
4.2.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as an author's work to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of other people's works (without specifying authorship) to claiming one's own rights for the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.3. Multiplicity, Redundancy, and Concurrency of Publication
4.3.1 In general, 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 and unacceptable.
4.3.2. In general, the author should not submit previously published article to another journal.
4.3.3. Publishing of certain type of article in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. The Authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree on the secondary publication if this publication necessarily represents the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. More information on valid forms of secondary (repeated) publications one can find on the webpage www.icmje.org.
4.4. Recognition of Original Sources
It is always necessary to recognize the contributions of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained privately, such as received during conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or provided without clear written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grants provisioning should not be used without clear written permission of the Authors of the work relating to confidential sources.
4.5. Authorship of the Publication
4.5.1 Only the persons who made significant contribution to the formation of the concept of work can be considered as the authors of the publication, development, execution or interpretation of presented research. All those who made significant contribution should be designated as Co-authors. Where study participants have made significant contribution to specific area in a research project, they should be identified as having made significant contribution to the study.
4.5.2. The Author has to ensure that all participants who have made significant contributions to the study are presented as Co-authors and those who have not participated 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.
4.6. People who are the objects of research
The manuscript should clearly state that informed consent has been obtained from all the persons who became the subject of research. The right for privacy must always be respected.
4.7. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interests required to be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock holding, fees, expert opinion, patent application or registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interests should be disclosed as soon as possible.
4.8. Significant Errors in Published Works
If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must report this to the Editor of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal and interact with the Editor for early withdrawal of the publication or correction of errors. If the Editor or Publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to remove the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
5.1 The Publisher shall follow the principles and procedures to facilitate ethical performance of Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher has to be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production has not affected the Editors' decisions.
5.2. The Publisher should support the Editors of the “Yearbook of the IARHCRG” journal in dealing with claims to the ethical aspects of published material and assist in interacting with other journals and/or Publishers if this contributes to the performance of the Editors.
5.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for removing and correcting errors.
5.4 The Publisher shall provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.