The ethics statements for the journal are based on the Code of Conductand Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
With the generous permission of the editors of the journal «Проблемыанализа – Issues of Analysis» we borrowed this text from its page, as our positions on the subject are identical.
Responsibilities of Author
The authors are responsible for the content of the article. All results should be represented by authors accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. If some part of the submitted article were published the author is obliged to make sufficient comments and references in the paper. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission.
All sources of financial support for the project might be disclosed.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to notify promptly the journal’s editors and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.
Responsibilities of Reviewer
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) as well as derogatory or disrespectful comments is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Reviewers should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.
Responsibilities of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief confers with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
The editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
The Editor-in-Chief should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The Editor-in-Chief should recuse himself from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.