УСЛОВИЯ ПРИЁМА МАТЕРИАЛОВ ДЛЯ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ
В соответствии с частью четвертой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации (раздел VII «Права на результаты интеллектуальной деятельности и средства индивидуализации») представляемые в журнал статьи должны сопровождаться лицензионным договором о передаче Учредителю журнала неисключительных авторских прав.
На все материалы, присылаемые в редакцию, с авторами необходимо заключать лицензионные договора. Редакция журнала не принимает к рассмотрению и публикации статьи без подписанного Лицензионного договора (заполняется на бланках по образцам). Заполните ВСЕ поля формы договора и подпишите договор в двух экземплярах. Оформленные договора отправьте в редакцию вместе со статьей по почте в издательство "Школьная Пресса", адрес: 127322, Россия, г.Москва, ул. Огородный проезд, д. 20, стр. 27; по факсу 8(495) 619-52-87 или отсканированный вариант оформленного договора отправьте по e-mail: редакции
Статьи представляются в редакцию лично авторами или пересылаются по почте простыми письмами и бандеролями в виде распечатки на белой бумаге на одной стороне листа в двух экземплярах вместе с дискетой или компакт-диском (файл WinWord). Объем статьи не должен превышать 20 000 знаков (приблизительно 11-12 машинописных страниц). Статья должна быть подписана всеми соавторами.
На отдельном листе необходимо предоставить следующие сведения обо всех авторах: фамилия, имя, отчество, дата рождения, паспортные данные, ученая степень, ученое звание, место работы, занимаемая должность, домашний адрес с индексом, контактный телефон (факс, электронная почта), ИНН, номер страхового (пенсионного) свидетельства. (Анкета автора, скачать)
Материалы могут быть продублированы по электронной почте, однако датой представления их в редакцию считается день поступления подписанной распечатки на бумаге.
В качестве иллюстраций (1 экз.) принимаются оригиналы и ксерокопии рисунков, отпечатки на глянцевой фотобумаге, компьютерные графические файлы.
Компьютерные диаграммы и таблицы должны представляться в виде отдельных файлов; снимки, сделанные цифровыми аппаратами, передаются в оригинальном размере, без сжатия. Допускается пересылка файлов в архивах ZIP или RAR.
Каждый экземпляр иллюстраций должен быть подписан на обороте: фамилия автора, название статьи, номер рисунка. Место иллюстраций должно быть четко указано в тексте статьи. К каждой иллюстрации необходима подпись, разъясняющая ее содержание, обстоятельства и время фотосъемки. Для фотографий также обязательно указать фамилии изображенных на них людей и получить их согласие на опубликование фото в журнале (для детей - согласие их родителей или опекунов).
Редакция знакомится со всеми письмами, но не имеет возможности вступать в переписку с их авторами, оставляя за собой право опубликовать наиболее интересные письма полностью или фрагментарно без дополнительного согласования с авторами и без выплаты им гонорара. Направляя письмо в редакцию, автор тем самым дает согласие на его опубликование, а также на то, что текст может быть сокращен и отредактирован без изменения его смысла.
Рукописи и иллюстрации не возвращаются. Материалы, представляющие для авторов особую ценность, могут быть получены непосредственно в редакции в течение одного года со дня их отправки при условии, что желание автора получить назад предоставленные материалы было ясно выражено им при первом обращении.
За публикацию в журнале любых материалов плата с авторов не взимается.
Сведения об адресах и телефонах авторов, производителях упоминаемого в статьях оборудования, издателях и распространителях печатной и иной продукции не предоставляются.
По вопросам подписки и приобретения отдельных номеров журнала просим обращаться непосредственно в издательство "Школьная Пресса": 127322, Россия, г.Москва, ул. Огородный проезд, д. 20, стр. 27 . Телефоны: 8 (495) 619-52-87, 619-83-80.
Пишите и звоните: мы готовы ответить на все Ваши вопросы и предложения!
Даже если вы сомневаетесь в своих писательских способностях, все равно присылайте свои материалы. Ведь в первую очередь, нам важны ваше мнение и опыт, а наши редакторы подготовят статью к публикации.
За статьи мы выплачиваем гонорары.
Порядок публикации. Одобренные рукописи принимаются в портфель редакции и публикуются в порядке очереди или по решению главного редактора журнала*.
* О принятом решении можно узнать по телефонам: 8(495) 619-52-78, 618-48-83 или по электронной почте.
Вы можете познакомиться с более подробными требованиями к материалам.
RULES materials for publication in EnglishВВЕРХ
1. Рецензированию подлежат все рукописи, поступившие в редакцию журнала.
2. Рукопись рассматривается главным редактором на предмет соответствия профилю журнала, требованиям к оформлению.
3. Редактор отдела проверяет соблюдение автором требований ВАК; заместитель главного редактора журнала направляет рукопись на рецензирование специалисту, доктору или кандидату наук, имеющему наиболее близкую к теме научную специализацию.
4. Авторы могут предоставить отзывы от лиц, имеющих ученую степень доктора или кандидата географических, педагогических, психологических наук (в соответствии с научным направлением.
5. Рецензентом не может быть автор или соавтор представленной рукописи, научные руководители соискателей учёной степени и сотрудники подразделения, в котором работает автор.
6. Рецензирование рукописи, как правило, осуществляет один из членов редакционного совета журнала, имеющий наиболее близкую к теме статьи научную специализацию. Редакция имеет право привлекать внешних рецензентов (докторов или кандидатов наук, в том числе специалистов-пра
7. Рецензирование рукописи осуществляется конфиденциально.
8. Рецензия подписывается специалистом с расшифровкой фамилии, имени и отчества, простановкой даты, указанием ученой степени, ученого звания и занимаемой рецензентом должности.
9. Рецензия должна объективно оценивать представленную рукопись, содержать всесторонний анализ ее научных и методических достоинств и недостатков. В заключительной части рецензии представлены обоснованные выводы о рукописи в целом и четкая рекомендация о целесообразности ее публикации в журнале либо необходимости доработки.
10. По результатам рецензирования рукопись может быть:
а) отклонена без объяснения причин в случае несоответствия тематике журнала или обнаружения включения в текст материалов других авторов, или с мотивировнным отказом;
б) отослана автору на доработку. В этом случае рукопись направляется авторам с замечаниями и предложениями. После доработки рукопись повторно рецензируется. Рукописи, отосланные авторам для исправления, должны быть возвращены в редакцию не позднее, чем через две недели после получения. Возвращение рукописи в более поздние сроки меняет дату публикации;
в) принята к публикации.
11. Окончательное решение о публикации рукописи принимает главный редактор.12. Авторам направляются копии рецензий или мотивированный отказ. По запросам экспертных советов Рецензии представляются в ВАК. Сроки рассмотрения статей ― не более 3 месяцев.
13. Редакция журнала не хранит рукописи, не принятые к печати. Рукописи, принятые к публикации, не возвращаются. Рукописи, получившие отрицательный результат от рецензента, не публикуются и не возвращаются автору.
14. Оригиналы рецензий хранятся в редакции журнала в течение пяти лет.
15. Копии рецензий направляются в Министерство образования и науки Российской Федерации при поступлении в редакцию издания соответствующего запроса.
16. Оплата рецензирования рукописи осуществляется издательством ООО «Школьная Пресса».
Главный редактор журнала
«География в школе», академик РАО Рыжаков М.В.
CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS
The procedure for review of manuscripts submitted for publication
in the journal “Geography in school”
1. Peer review is required for all manuscripts received by the editorial office.
2. The manuscript is regarded as the chief editor for compliance with the profile of the journal, the requirements for registration.
3. The editor verifies the author of HAC requirements; Deputy chief editor of the journal sends the manuscript for review to the specialist, doctor or candidate of Sciences who is close to the theme of scientific specialization.
4. The authors can provide testimonials from individuals who have a degree of doctor or candidate of geographical, pedagogical, psychological Sciences (in accordance with the scientific direction.
5. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, supervisors doctoral candidates and staff of the unit in which the author works. If the editorial Board is unable to involve the reviewing of the submitted manuscript specialist in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript, the editor in chief refers to the author requesting an external review.
6. The reviewing of the manuscript, usually performed by one of the members of the editorial Board, which has the closest to the topic of scientific specialization. The editorial Board has the right to engage external reviewers (doctors or candidates of Sciences, including practitioners).
7. Peer review is confidential.
8. The review is signed by the specialist with details of name, name and patronymic, assignment dates, indicating an academic degree, academic title and position of the reviewer post.
9. The review shall objectively assess the submitted manuscript should contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. In the final part of the review presents valid conclusions about the manuscript and a clear recommendation about whether its publication in the journal or necessary improvements.
10. Based on reviewing the manuscript may be:
a) rejected without explanation in case of discrepancy the scope of the journal or discovery of inclusion in the text of the materials by other authors, or with motivirovannymi failure;
b) sent to the author for revision. In this case, the manuscript is sent to the authors with comments and suggestions. After revision, the manuscript is re-reviewed. Manuscripts sent to authors for corrections must be returned to the editorial office no later than two weeks after receipt. The return of the manuscript at a later date changes the date of publication;
b) accepted for publication.
11. The final decision on publication is made by the chief editor.
12. Authors are sent copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal. Reviews are submitted to the HAC on request expert advice. Timing of review articles should not exceed 3 months.
13. The editorial Board does not store the manuscripts not accepted for publication. The manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts that received a negative result from the reviewer, are not published and are not returned to the author.
14. The originals are kept in the magazine for five years.
15. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the relevant request.
16. Payment for reviewing manuscripts is performed by the publishing company "School Press".
Chief editor of the magazine
"Ggeography in school", academician RAO Ryzhakov M.V.
CODE OF THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
The ethical code of scientific publications in the periodicals of the publishing house "School Press" was developed taking into account the International Standards of the Committee for the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE). This document is obligatory for implementation and unites and reveals the general principles and rules that participants in the process of scientific publications should guide in their relationships: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.
International standards deal with the following issues:
• agreements with research authors that do not allow funders and sponsors to prohibit the publication of discoveries unfavorable to their products or situation;
• providing editors of journals with procedures that separate their commercial and publishing activities, so that the sponsored articles undergo the same rigorous quality control and are subject to independent evaluation, like all other publications;
• compliance by authors with restrictions on the disclosure of information contained in their accepted but not yet published articles, and ensuring that press releases accurately reflect the content of their work and do not include statements that go beyond the discoveries made in the course of Research;
• Serious attitude of editors to the possibility of any violations of the protection of personal data and confidentiality, and ensuring that all research is conducted within the framework of national and international laws and principles of best practices.
Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional conduct in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, disseminating and using scientific publications.
Editor - a representative of a scientific journal or publisher, preparing materials for publication, as well as supporting communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.
The author is a person or a group of persons (a team of authors) involved in creating a publication of the results of a scientific study.
The reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publisher and conducting scientific expertise of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
The publisher is a legal entity or an individual who publishes a scientific publication.
Reader - any person who has read the published materials.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else's work of science or art, other people's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can be a violation of copyright laws and patent laws and, as such, may entail legal liability.
I. STANDARDS OF ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR OF EDITORS
1. Responsibility for the content of the journal
Editors are required to be responsible for all materials published by them and to apply procedures and policies to ensure the high quality and reliability of published material.
2. Editorial Independence and Integrity
An important part of the responsibility for making fair and objective decisions is observance of the principle of editorial independence and good faith.
2.1 Independence of Decision-Making from Commercial Considerations
Editors make decisions only on the basis of the scientific qualities of the articles and take full responsibility for their decisions. The adopted procedures should separate commercial activities within the journal from editorial processes and decisions. Editors should take an active interest in publishers' pricing policy and fight for the wide availability of published materials. Sponsored supplements should be subject to the same strict quality control and independent review as any other material in the magazine. Decisions on such materials should be taken in the same way as for any other materials in the journal. The fact of sponsorship and the role of the sponsor should be clearly communicated to the readers. Advertisements must comply with the journal's policy, be clearly distinguishable from other content and should not have any connection with the scientific content of the magazine.
2.2 The attitude of editors to the publisher or the owners of the journal
Ideally, the editors must be signed a contract that contains the conditions for their appointment by the publisher of the magazine or the owner. In this contract, the principle of editorial independence must be clearly stated. Publishers and magazine owners should not take any part in decisions regarding its content for commercial or political reasons. Publishers can not dismiss the editor for any reason related to the content of the journal, except in cases of gross editorial negligence or in the event that an independent investigation shows that the editor's decision to publish the material was taken in spite of the journal's scientific mission.
2.3 Journal Indicators and Decision Making
The editors do not attempt to improperly influence the rating of their magazine by artificially increasing any indicators of the journal. For example, it is inappropriate to add links to articles published in the journal - such links should appear only on the basis of purely scientific considerations. In general, editors should ensure that the review of materials takes place solely on scientific grounds, and that authors do not have the pressure to quote certain publications for unscientific reasons.
3. Editorial confidentiality
3.1 Authors' Material
If the journal uses a system according to which independent reviewers are selected by editors, the editors ensure the confidentiality of the authors' material and inform about the need to preserve such confidentiality of reviewers. As a rule, editors do not share received articles with editors of other journals, except in cases of obtaining authors' consent or alleged misconduct.
Editors, as a rule, are not required to provide material to lawyers for legal proceedings. The editors do not tell anyone the status of the material in the magazine, except for the authors. The systems for submitting materials for publication through the Internet should work so that the probability of unauthorized access is excluded.
When investigating cases of misconduct, it may be necessary to disclose the material to third parties (for example, the institution's supervisory board or other editors).
Editors undertake to maintain the confidentiality of the personal data of reviewers, except when the independent review system is open. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, they should be allowed to do so.
In the event of an alleged misconduct, the reviewer may need to disclose the name of the reviewer to a third party.
4. Encourage maximum transparency, completeness and fairness of publications
To improve scientific knowledge, it is important to understand why this or that scientific work was done, how and by whom it was planned and conducted, and also what it adds to the knowledge already available. To achieve this understanding, it is extremely important to maximize transparency and complete and fair presentation of research papers.
4.1 Authorship and responsibility
Magazines have a clearly formulated policy on authorship, which meets international standards. Editors provide authors with guidelines containing the requirements for them, and if different approaches are adopted in the area to determine authorship, declare which one they adhere to.
In a multidisciplinary or collaborative study, readers should understand who did what and who is responsible for the implementation and validity of one or another aspect of the study. Each part of the work must have at least one author who is responsible for its reliability. It is expected that all authors make a significant contribution to the material and are familiar with all of its content; Ideally this should be indicated in the application for authorship submitted to the journal. Whenever authors make editorial changes for reasons that are legitimate, editors must require that all authors (including those whose names are excluded from the list of authors) express their consent in writing. Disputes concerning authorship for both published and unpublished works (that is, disagreements as to who should or should not be an author appearing before or after publication) can not be resolved by editors and considered in research institutions or other relevant independent bodies. In such cases, the editors act in accordance with the obtained results of conflict resolution, for example by correcting authorship in published works.
4.2. Conflicts of interest and the role of the source of financing
Editors should have a policy that requires all authors to declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and include in the article a mention, at least, of those that could affect the reader's perception of content.
It is necessary to state the source of research funding and publish it; Also, the role of the source of financing in the formation of the concept of work, its implementation, analysis of data and preparation of publication is indicated and published. Editors should clearly inform the authors if, due to possible conflicts of interest, their work can not be published in certain sections of the journal (for example, in written articles or reviews written by order).
4.3 Complete and fair presentation of data and compliance with data provision rules
One of the most important duties of editors is to maintain a high standard in the scientific literature. Although the standards of different journals differ, in their work the editors want all published works to make a significant new contribution to their field.
Magazines use a policy that encourages a complete and honest presentation of the material.
Digital image files, numbers and tables must conform to standards in a certain area. Images should not be improperly altered from the original version or represent misleading results.
Editors can also use software to check for manipulation of images, plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication. In the event that plagiarism or fraudulent manipulation of the image is detected, the problem should be considered together with the authors of the work and with the relevant institutions.
5. Reaction to criticism and problems
The response to published research from other researchers is an important part of scientific debate in most areas and should generally be encouraged. In some areas, journalists can "strengthen" such a debate by publishing readers' feedback. Criticism may be part of general scientific debate, but it may also draw attention to the lack of fairness of research or publication.
5.1 Ensuring the reliability of published data - amending
When readers, authors, or editors find undisputed errors in a published work that do not render the work invalid, it is required to amend as soon as possible (or correct typos). The online version of the material can be fixed with the date of correction and a link to the list of typos. In the event that the error makes the work or a significant part of the work void, the article should be withdrawn with an indication of the reason (for example, a bona fide error).
5.2 Ensuring the reliability of published data - suspicion of misconduct during research or publication
In the event that readers, reviewers or others raise questions about the conduct, validity or publication of scientific work, the editors primarily contact the authors (ideally with all authors) and give them the opportunity to respond to the charges. If their response is unsatisfactory, the editors submit the case to a research institution. Upon completion of the investigation, the editors need to take appropriate measures, accompanied by a comment explaining the findings of the investigation. Editors can independently decide to withdraw material if they are convinced that misconduct has occurred, even if an investigation by an agency or a national body does not recommend it.
Editors must respond to all allegations or suspicions of misconduct regarding research or publications that are made by readers, reviewers or other editors.
Editors are often the first to receive information about such problems and should act even if the material has not yet been accepted for publication or its publication has not yet been refused.
In addition to the special responsibility for publishing in his journal, editors bear collective responsibility for published scientific knowledge and must act in any case of potentially misconduct that has become known to them. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicative / redundant publication can be evaluated by editors themselves. However, in most other cases, the editors request an investigation by the institution or other relevant authorities (after receiving clarification from the authors, if such clarification was not satisfactory).
6. Ensuring an honest and proper process for independent peer review
One of the most important duties of editors is to organize and use independent peer review in an honest and prudent manner. Editors describe the accepted independent review procedures in the information materials for authors, indicating also which parts of the journal are subject to independent review.
6.1 Decision to review
Editors may reject material without independent review if it is deemed to be of poor quality or unsuitable for the readers of the magazine. This decision is taken honestly and impartially. The criteria for making such a decision must be clearly defined. The decision not to send material to an independent review can be based only on the scientific content of the material and can not depend on the identity of the authors or on the place of their work.
6.2 Interaction with independent reviewers
Editors use the services of independent reviewers for materials considered for publication, by selecting persons with sufficient experience and without conflicts of interest. Editors ensure the timely receipt of reviews.
Independent reviewers are informed of the requirements for them, as well as information on any changes in editorial policies. In particular, independent reviewers require an evaluation of the research and ethical issues of the publication (that is, whether, in their opinion, the study was conducted ethically, do they have suspicions of plagiarism, forgery, falsification or excessive publication). Editors should formally solicit independent reviewers about conflicts of interest on their part and require independent reviewers to promptly inform them of any such conflict of interest so that they can decide whether objective review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may entail the disqualification of an independent reviewer.
Editors should require independent reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the materials they provide, and require independent reviewers to tell them if they refer to the help of colleagues when reviewing them.
6.3 Wrong behavior of the reviewer
Editors should take seriously the misconduct of the reviewer and consider any application for breach of confidentiality, non-disclosure of conflicts of interest (financial and non-financial), improper use of confidential material or delay in independent review in the interests of competitors. In case of serious violations by the reviewer, such as plagiarism, the editor must report them to the institution in which he works (for further recommendations read here: CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS
6.4 Interaction with authors
Editors should explain to the authors that the role of an independent reviewer may vary depending on the journal. Some editors view reviewers as consultants and may refrain from adhering to (or even requesting) their recommendations for accepting or rejecting the publication. Correspondence of editors, as a rule, is conducted with the responsible author, who ensures participation of co-authors at all stages. As a rule, editors make a decision based on all the comments of independent reviewers in general. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to delete parts of the review if it, for example, contains defamatory or offensive remarks. It is important, however, that such editorial analysis is not aimed at "suppressing" uncomfortable comments.
If, at a later stage of the process, additional reviewers are searched, there must always be reasonable reasons for this, clearly communicated to the authors. The final editorial decision and the reasons for making it are clearly communicated to the authors and reviewers. If the material is rejected, the editors must consider the objections of the authors according to the accepted procedure. At the same time, editors are not required to revoke their decision.
7. Adoption of the editorial decision
Editors take an influential position, taking decisions on the acceptance or rejection of publications, which makes special demands on the honesty and objectivity of this process and its conformity to the scientific vision of a particular journal.
7.1 Editing materials by editors and magazine
All editorial processes should be described in information materials for authors. In particular, they must specify the requirements for authors, types of published materials, and also the process of processing materials by the journal. All editors should be well acquainted with the journal's policy, its point of view and themes. The final editor is responsible for all decisions.
7.2 Conflicts of interests of the editor
Editors should not make decisions regarding materials in connection with which they have a conflict of interest. Magazines should have a specific procedure for processing such materials, as well as a procedure for processing materials submitted by editors or members of the editorial board to ensure an objective and independent review of such materials. This procedure is described in the information materials for authors. Conflicts of interests of the editor should be announced, ideally, publicly.
II. ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEWERS
1. Basic principles to be followed by reviewers
• agree to review only those manuscripts for which they have sufficient knowledge and which they can review in a timely manner;
• Respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or reviews during or after the peer review to anyone other than those authorized by the magazine;
• Do not use the information obtained during the review for your own benefit, the benefit of other persons or organizations, as well as for causing harm to others or discrediting others;
• declare all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice in the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not, do not allow the content of their review to be affected by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of it Authors or commercial considerations;
• write a review objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements, as well as from slanderous or humiliating comments;
• Understand that, as researchers, they themselves need the honest reviews of their colleagues, and therefore perform peer review, respectively;
• provide journals with accurate and truthful information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience and realize that attempts to impersonate another person during review are a serious violation of ethical norms and rules.
2. What should be the peer review process
In preparation for the review
• respond quickly enough to an offer to write a review, especially if they are not going to write it;
• If they do not know the subject of the research in sufficient detail to write a review, state it directly, and if they can estimate only some part of the manuscript, then describe the boundaries of the area in which they have sufficient knowledge;
• agree to the review of the manuscript only if they are sure that they will be able to prepare a review within the proposed or jointly agreed time period, promptly notifying the journal if they need an extension of the period;
• declare all possible conflicts of interest (for example, related to personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious interests) and seek advice in the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not;
• Follow the policy of the journal in situations that, in their opinion, can interfere with objective review. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, they must notify the journal if they work in the same organization as one of the authors (or will soon work in this organization, or apply for employment in this organization); If they are or have been in the recent past (for example, during the last 3 years) by teachers of one of the authors, their students, close collaborators or joint users of grants or they have a close personal relationship with one of the authors;
• re-review any article they previously criticized for another journal, since during this time, its text could have changed and the criteria for publishing articles from journals may be different;
• Ensure that the proposals to alternative reviewers are made unbiased, or are not the result of personal preferences, or are made for the manuscript to receive a certain rating (positive or negative);
• do not agree to the review of the manuscript only in order to read it, without the intention of preparing a review;
• refuse to prepare a review if they feel that they can not give an impartial and fair assessment;
• refuse to prepare a review if they participated in any work related to the preparation of the manuscript, or in the studies described therein;
• refuse to prepare a review if asked to review the manuscript, which is very similar to the one they are criticizing for another journal or to the one that was proposed for peer review;
• refuse to prepare a review if they do not agree with the review rules adopted in the journal, which can either affect their review or depreciate it because they can not effectively meet the journal's requirements.
3. During the review
• notify the journal promptly and seek advice if they have found any conflict of interest that was not noticed when they agreed to take the article for review, or any other circumstances that hampered the formation of a fair and impartial assessment of the article;
• refrain from studying the manuscript and related materials while waiting for instructions from the journal on issues that may lead to a request for termination of the review agreement;
• carefully read the manuscript, supporting materials (for example, instructions for the reviewer, required ethical guidelines and policy principles, files with applications) and journal instructions, referring to the journal in case of any questions and requesting the missing information necessary for compiling a qualitative review;
• Notify the journal as soon as possible if they find that they do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript without waiting for the date of the review, as this will delay the review process;
• not involve anyone in the preparation of a review, including his assistants, without the consent of the journal; The names of all persons who assisted reviewers in writing reviews should be included in the text so that the fact of their participation was registered in the journal and the magazine could express their gratitude to them;
• Do not publicize the details of the manuscript and reviews;
• Report to the journal if circumstances appear that prevent the timely preparation of a review, providing an accurate estimate of the time that will be required if the journal does not appoint another reviewer in their place;
• In the case of a "double blind" review, if they know the name of the author (s), inform the journal if such knowledge can cause a conflict of interest;
• Immediately notify the journal if they found any errors in their work, are concerned about the ethical nature of the work, learned about the significant similarity between the manuscript and another document, or suspect that in the course of researching or sending the manuscript, unfair behavior occurred in the journal; At the same time reviewers should keep their fears secret and not further investigate the circumstances of the case, unless the journal itself turns to them for help;
• Do not delay the review process, delaying the submission of your review or requesting additional unnecessary information from the journal or the author;
• Ensure that the evaluation contained in their review is based on the quality of the work and does not affect (for the better or for worse) any personal, financial or other considerations, or intellectual predilections;
• Do not contact the authors directly without the prior permission of the journal.
4. During the preparation of the review
• Remember that the editor expects from them knowledge of the subject area, common sense, as well as an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and manuscript;
• if the review (at the request of the journal) affects only certain aspects of the work, indicate this at the very beginning of the review and clarify which aspects;
• follow the journal's instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them, and if there are no compelling reasons not to implement it, arrange such a link;
• give an objective and constructive review that can help authors improve their manuscript;
• Avoid humiliating personal comments or groundless accusations;
• Be specific in their criticism and affirm with solid evidence and relevant references their general conclusions, such as "this work was done earlier", to help editors form correct assessments and decisions with an objective attitude towards the authors;
• remember that this is an author's work, and do not try to rewrite it in accordance with its stylistic preferences, if it is generally qualitative and written clearly; Although suggestions for improving the clarity of presentation are always welcome;
• Maintain sensitivity in language issues, if authors write in a language that is not native to them, and formulate their comments accordingly and with due respect;
• clearly indicate which proposed additional studies can support the findings of the peer-reviewed manuscript, and can enhance or expand the work;
• Do not write a review in such a way that there are reasons to assume that it was written by another person;
• not depict other people in a negative light or biased in their review;
• Avoid unfair negative comments or unreasonable criticism of any work of competitors listed in the manuscript;
• Ensure that comments and recommendations addressed to the editor are in agreement with the report addressed to the authors; The main part of the information should be included in the report sent to the authors;
• Confidential comments directed to the editor should not contain slander and false accusations against authors, made in the belief that the authors will not see these comments;
• Do not invite authors to include in the publication references to the work of the reviewer (or his colleagues) only in order to increase the citation or significance of their work; All proposals to authors should be based only on the basis of their scientific or technological value;
• Determine whether the journal policy allows you to sign your reviews, and if so, decide whether it is convenient for them to do so;
• If the editor working with the manuscript decides to write a review himself, he must do it transparently, not pretending to be an anonymous reviewer (if the journal practices anonymous review); But writing a review of the manuscript, with which another editor of the magazine works, can be regarded as any other review.
5. After the preparation of the review
• continue to keep the details of the manuscript and its reviews in secrecy;
• respond quickly if there are questions from the journal related to the manuscript and provide the necessary information;
• contact the journal if, after submitting their review, they learned some important facts that could affect their initial opinion and recommendations;
• read the reviews of other reviewers, if they are provided by the journal, in order to improve their understanding of the topic or their conclusions in relation to the work;
• If possible, fulfill the requests of the journals to review the changes made to the manuscript or the new version of the manuscript.
III. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS
1. Reliability and thoroughness
1.1. The published study should be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal norms.
1.2. The published research should be done accurately and thoroughly.
1.3. Researchers should use appropriate methods for analyzing and presenting data (and, if necessary, seek the advice of a specialist in this field).
1.4. The authors bear collective responsibility for their work and the content of the publication. Researchers should carefully check their publications at all stages to ensure that all their methods and results are spelled out accurately.
1.5. Authors should carefully check all calculations, data representations, documents and evidence formed by them.
2.1. Researchers should present the results honestly and without fabricating, falsifying, or manipulating data in an unconscionable manner. Editing of published images (for example, micrographs, radiographs, electrophoresis photographs) should not create a probability of misleading the reader.
2.2. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously.
2.3. Researchers must follow the applicable rules for the presentation of scientific papers. Publications should provide sufficient information for other researchers to repeat the experiments.
2.4. Research reports should be complete. Information about inexplicable facts, conflicting data and data that do not correspond to theories or hypotheses of authors or sponsors of research should not be omitted in them.
2.5. Research sponsors should not have the right to veto publication of results that unfavorably represent their products or position. Researchers should not enter into agreements that allow sponsors to prohibit or monitor the publication of their results (except in exceptional cases, for example, if the study is classified as secret at the government level).
2.6. Authors should immediately notify the editor in case of an error in any submitted by them for a publication accepted for publication or already published work. Authors should cooperate with editors if it is necessary to edit or shorten the work.
2.7. Quotations and references to other works should be accurate and neatly arranged.
2.8. Authors should not copy references from other publications to works that they themselves have not read.
3.1 New results should be presented in the context of previous studies. The work of other scientists should be properly reflected. The review and conclusions from existing studies should be complete, balanced, and should include information, whether they support the hypothesis and interpretation of the author of the publication or not. In journals, there should be a clear distinction between scientific articles and editorial columns and articles representing a subjective point of view.
3.2 All restrictions adopted during the research should be reflected in the publication.
4.1. Authors must comply with the requirements for publications regarding the fact that the proposed work is original and has not previously been published anywhere in any language. Work can not be sent simultaneously to several publications, unless the publishers agree to a joint publication. If the article is published jointly, this fact should be known to the readers.
4.2. Applicable conventions and copyright laws must be respected. Materials protected by copyright (for example, tables, figures or large quotes) may only be reproduced with the permission of their owners.
4.3. The publication should refer to the previous works of both other researchers and the author relating to it, and to do so correctly and accurately. In all possible cases, reference to the source must be indicated.
4.4. It is necessary to indicate the authorship of data, text, drawings and ideas that the author has received from other sources, and they should not be presented as publications belonging to the author. Direct quotes from the works of other researchers should be allocated with quotation marks and appropriate reference.
4.5. Authors should notify publishers if the information they have proposed for publication has previously been published elsewhere or if any interpretations of these data have been sent to other publishers. In this case, the authors must provide copies of such publications or works submitted to other journals.
4.6. The various publications arising from the work on a single research project should be clearly identified as such and should contain references to the original publications. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly marked, have references to the source, comply with the relevant copyright conventions and the rules for obtaining authorizations for use. In case of doubt, the authors must ask permission from the publisher of the source before reprinting any work.
5.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, the provision of equipment or materials, and other types of support (for example, assistance from statistical data processing specialists or technical writers) should be indicated.
5.2. Authors should provide information on the degree of participation of the research sponsor (if any) in project preparation, implementation, analysis, interpretation of results and preparation of a research report.
5.3. Authors should provide information on financial and non-financial interests and relationships that could affect the interpretation of their discoveries, as well as information of this kind that may be relevant to publishers, reviewers and readers. This includes any relationship the author has with the magazine, for example, if publishers publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, the authors must follow the requirements of the journal and institution on the disclosure of competing interests.
6. Authorship and references to sources
6.1. Research literature contains information not only about discoveries, but also about who made these discoveries. Consequently, the authorship of scientific publications should accurately reflect the contribution of individuals to research work and the writing of a report on it.
6.2. In those cases where people who have made the main contribution are listed as authors, and those whose contribution to research or writing are less important or of a purely technical nature are indicated in the section of gratitude, the criteria for attribution should be agreed at the beginning of the project. Ideally, the criteria for authorship in a particular field of research should be coordinated, published and constantly used by research centers, professional and academic communities and sponsors. Although the editors of journals should develop and publish certain criteria of authorship in certain areas of research, they should not be expected to resolve disputes on this issue. Responsibility for the correct definition of authorship lies entirely with the authors themselves, acting in accordance with the rules adopted in their institution. Scientific institutions should develop and maintain fair standards of attribution and appreciation. If necessary, such institutions should resolve disputes on authorship, while ensuring compliance with the correct procedure.
6.3. Researchers should ensure that only those persons who meet the criteria of authorship (that is, have made a significant contribution to the work) are considered authors and that authors who are worthy of authorship will not be excluded from the list of authors. Research centers and editors of scientific publications should introduce the practice of preventing guest, gift or nameless authorship.
6.4. All authors must agree to be included in the list of authors and approve the publication aimed at the publication and the edited version of the work. Any changes in the list of authors must be approved by all authors, including those who are struck from the list. The responsible author acts as a contact person between the publisher and other authors. It should inform the co-authors and involve them in decision-making on the issues of publication (for example, in the case of responding to comments from reviewers).
6.5. Authors should not mislead readers by publishing gratitude to people who were not actually involved in the work and did not provide support.
7. Accountability and responsibility
7.1. All authors should read and well know the work submitted for publication and ensure that this work is consistent with the principles set forth in this manual. In most cases, authors are given joint responsibility for the conscientiousness of research and reporting on it. However, if authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of work and published material, this should be indicated in the publication.
7.2. Authors should work with editors or publishers to promptly correct their work if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
7.3. Authors must adhere to the relevant conventions, requirements and regulations so that their materials, reagents, software or datasets are available to other researchers who request them.
7.4. Researchers, academic institutions and sponsors should have a clear policy for considering such requests. Authors are required to follow certain standards of journals. If an expression of gratitude is offered for the materials provided, the researchers should not require that they identify themselves as authors to provide the materials.
7.5. Authors should respond appropriately to comments after publication, as well as on published correspondence. They should try to answer questions from reviewers and provide necessary explanations and additional information, if any.
8. Compliance with Peer Review and Publishing Agreements
8.1. The authors are obliged to comply with the requirements of publishers that the work should not be simultaneously offered for publication in more than one edition.
8.2. Authors should notify the editor if they refuse to review their work or prefer not to respond to the comments of the reviewer after receiving a conditional consent to the publication.
8.3. Authors should answer the questions of the reviewer professionally and in the shortest possible time.
8.4. Authors should respect the publisher's request to limit publications in the media and should not allow their media reports to be reported if their article was accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a scientific publication. Authors and their research centers should liaise and interact with publishers to coordinate media activities (for example, check press releases or press conferences) in connection with the publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the content of the work and should not include data that goes beyond the results of the study.
9. Responsible reflection of research results involving people
9.1. Appropriate approvals, licenses and registrations must be obtained prior to the start of the research, and information on this should be included in the study report.
9.2. At the request of the editor, authors must provide evidence that the research described in the work has received the necessary permits and was ethically carried out (for example, copies of approvals, licenses, consent forms of participants).
9.3. Researchers should not publish or disseminate the identifiable personal data of a person collected during the study without his explicit consent (or the consent of his representatives). Researchers should remember that many scientific journals are currently freely available on the Internet, and therefore should bear in mind the risk of harm or moral harm to an inappropriate audience (for example, study participants or their families who can recognize themselves in the presentation Situational studies, descriptions, images or pedigrees).
9.4. The methodology of statistical data analysis should be determined at the beginning of the research, the data analysis plan for obtaining preliminary results should be prepared in advance and should be followed. Secondary, or a posteriori, analysis must be clearly distinguished from the primary and the analysis indicated in the plan.
9.5. Researchers should publish all relevant research results that are important for understanding. In particular, the ethical norm is the publication of the results of all clinical trials. The publication of unsuccessful studies or experiments that reject the hypothesis can save others from the loss of time and resources for the implementation of similar projects. If the results of minor studies and those that do not yield statistically significant results can be combined to obtain more useful information (for example, by meta-analysis), then such data should be published.
9.6. Authors should, upon request, provide research journals with research protocols (eg clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the study report with the protocol to ensure that it was conducted in accordance with the plan and no important details have been omitted. Researchers must comply with the relevant rules for the registration of clinical trials and include the registration number of tests in all publications related to these tests.