|Siberian Journal of Philology|
Our ethical principles
The Editorial Board of the Siberian Journal of Philology adheres to the principles of publication ethics accepted by the international scientific community and as expressed in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
A scientific publication is a minimal act of a printed scientific communication, which includes the main participants of the publishing process - 1) the Author; 2) the Publisher; 3) the Reviewer 4) the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board and the Editorial Staff, 5) the Reader.
Printed scientific communication is defined by the characteristics of scientific activity and communication in the field of science:
1) The necessity for the publication of scientific results for the general approbation of the scientific community;
2) The establishment of a priority in obtaining scientific results, as evidenced by the scientific publication and by the strict copyright law act of the published text;
3) The multiplicity, the potential internationality and broad territorial distribution of the scientific community as a communication community, which implies the need for and effectiveness of the printed form of communication in conjunction with online communication;
4) The strict requirements for the content and design of the scientific materials being published.
The scientific publication ethics is the set of rules of professional conduct for the members of a scientific publication process.
The Ethical principles, which are accepted by the Editorial Board, reflect three important aspects of scientific publication and position of the main participants in the publishing process mentioned above.
The first aspect is related to the research, the results of which are presented in the publication. The essential characteristics of scientific research reflected in the publication are the accuracy of results, scientific novelty, and the direct participation of the Author in the study concerned.
The second aspect is related to the text published: its Authorship, scientific content, and design.
The third aspect concerns the relationship of the publication process participants: the relation to scientific schools and directions, research priority in the field of science of the text published, and personal relationships, including likes and dislikes.
The following ethical principles reflect the three aspects of a scientific publication, define the basic rules of conduct of participants, correspond to the journal policy and are one of the main components of the process of selection, review, and publication of scientific papers.
1. General requirements for the participants of the publishing process
All the participants in the process of publication must adhere to the following ethical principles:
1.1. The importance of scientific content, the reliability of research results and scientific novelty of published texts.
1.2. Confidentiality of information and preventing its use prior to publication.
1.3. Avoidance and, in the event of, a fair resolution of a conflict of interest.
1.4. Compliance with the editorial policy.
2. Principles of Professional Ethics in the Publisher's activity
In carrying out the activities, the publisher is responsible for the process of publication in the journal, which entails the need to follow the following basic principles and procedures:
2.1. Encouraging participants in the publishing process to fulfill their ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements.
2.2. Supporting the Editorial Board in considering the claims of the ethical aspects of the published materials and promoting the interaction with other journals and/or publishers if doing so helps the editors in performing their duties.
2.3. Ensuring confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and any related information until it is published.
2.4. Recognizing the fact that the activities of the Journal are noncommercial, without any profit motives.
2.5. Providing the possibility of publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if necessary.
2.6. Providing the possibility for the Editorial Board to reject publications containing but not limited to plagiarism and false data.
2.7. Implementing the right to reject a manuscript from the Author or request its revision if it does not comply with the rules and standards of the Journal and its publishers.
2.8. Providing timely publication of the Journal issues.
3. The ethical principles that should be followed by the Author of a scientific publication
When submitting work to the Siberian Journal of Philology, the Authors (or group of Authors) bear the primary responsibility for its originality, authenticity, and independence of the results of scientific research, which involves the following principles:
3.1. The Authors should provide reliable research results.
3.2. The Authors should ensure that the results of the study, given in the submitted manuscript, are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be accompanied by the obligatory reference to its original Author and source. Excessive borrowing and any form of plagiarism, including non-documented citations or appropriating another person’s research results are non-ethical and unacceptable. The Editorial Board will consider borrowings without references as plagiarism and will refuse to publish the paper with such inclusions.
3.3. The Authors should provide only authentic facts and data; give enough information for other researchers to check and repeat the experiments; not use information obtained privately, without open written permission; not to allow the fabrication and falsification of data.
3.4. The Authors should avoid duplication of publications. If some elements of the manuscript have been previously published, the Author should refer to this earlier work.
3.5. The Authors should not submit to the journal the manuscript which was sent to another journal and is under consideration, or if the paper has already been published in another journal.
3.6. It is necessary to recognize the contributions of all persons, who somehow participated in the course of the study; in particular, the paper should contain references to the works that significantly influenced its research.
3.7. The Authors should follow the ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on third-party research.
3.8. The Co-Authors of the paper should include all persons who have made a significant contribution to the study. It is not acceptable to list those who did not take part in the research.
3.9. The Authors should respect the work of the Editorial Board and reviewers and review and edit as per indicated feedback given or provide reasoned objections for abstaining from Reviewer suggestions.
3.10. The Authors should submit and prepare the manuscript according to the rules of the Journal.
3.11. If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the manuscript under consideration or after its publication, they must immediately inform the Editorial Board.
3.12. The Authors should provide the Editorial Board or the publisher with proof of the validity of the original article or correct significant errors if the Editorial Board has become aware of them from a third party.
4. The Ethical principles of the Reviewer
The Reviewer provides scientific expertise of the Author’s material, where their actions should be impartial, and the following principles should be adhered to:
4.1. The manuscript received for reviewing should be regarded as a confidential document, which cannot be transferred for examination or discussion to a third party, unless Authorized by the Editorial Board.
4.2. The Reviewers working with peer-reviewed manuscript should be guided by the fact that the manuscript is the intellectual property of the Author and is not to be disclosed.
4.3. The Reviewer should inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial or partial similarity of the manuscript under consideration with any other work, as well as about the absence of references to the statements, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other Authors.
4.4. The Reviewer should note relevant published works that are not quoted by the Author.
4.5. The Reviewer should give an objective and reasoned assessment of the research results and clearly justified recommendations. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable.
4.6. The comments and suggestions of the Reviewer should be objective and fundamental, aimed at improving the value of the manuscript.
4.7. The Reviewer should make decisions basing on specific facts and be able to justify them.
4.8. The Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for personal use.
4.9. The Reviewers are not allowed to take advantage of their awareness of the content of the work prior to its publication.
4.10. The Reviewers who, in their own opinion, are not qualified enough to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the Author or an institution, should request the editor to exclude them from the reviewing process.
4.11. The manuscript review is confidential. Only the Executive Editor and the Editor-in-Chief know the identity of the Reviewer. This information cannot be disclosed.
5. The principles of professional ethics for the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and Editorial Staff
In carrying out their activities, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and Editorial Staff are responsible for the selection, prepress and publishing works of the manuscripts imposing on them the need to follow the basic principles:
5.1. The Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and Editorial Staff should:
— Continually improve the Journal;
— Follow the principle of freedom of opinion;
— Strive to meet the needs of the Readers and the Authors of the Journal;
— Eliminate the influence of business or political interests in decision-making when publishing the materials;
— Decide on the publication of materials according to the following key criteria: appropriateness of the manuscript for the Journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted manuscript; clarity; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. A decision about publication is made on the basis of the quality of the research and its relevance;
— Take all reasonable measures to ensure the quality of the published materials and to protect the confidentiality of personal information;
— Take into account the Reviewers' recommendations when making a final decision about the publication of manuscripts. The responsibility for the publication decision lies entirely on the Editorial Board of the Journal;
— Justify their decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of a given manuscript;
— Provide the Author with the peer-reviewed material with an opportunity to substantiate their research position;
— Not revoke the decision on publication made by the previous Board if the list of the Editorial Board members was updated.
5.2. When deciding on the publication of the chief editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board and Editorial Staff should be guided by the data validity, scientific novelty and significance of the work under consideration.
5.3. The Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and Editorial Staff should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, social status or political preferences of the Author(s).
5.4. Unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or passed on to third parties without the written consent of the Author. The information or the ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to potential benefits should be kept confidential and not be used for personal benefit.
5.5. The Editor-in-Chief should not allow the text to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it contains plagiarism.
5.6. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Publisher, shall not leave complaints unanswered regarding the peer-reviewed manuscripts or published materials; they also shall detect conflicts and take all necessary measures to restore the rights that have been infringed.
5.7. The Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and Editorial Staff should:
— Post the paper accepted for publication on open access;
— Publish the information about the copyrights of the Authors; information on the financial support of the study, if the Author gives such information;
— When content, grammatical, stylistic and other mistakes are found, to take all measures to correct them.
— To agree on editorial corrections with the Author of the manuscript.
6. Conflict of Interest
In order to avoid violations of Publication Ethics, it is necessary to exclude all conflicts of interests of all parties involved in the publication of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest arise when the Authors, the Reviewers or members of the Editorial Board have financial, scientific or personal relations that may influence their actions. Such relations are known as dual commitments, competing interests or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the ethical standards adopted by the Journal, each party should bear the following responsibilities.
The Editor should:
— pass on the manuscript for consideration to another Editorial Board member if the initially appointed Reviewer has a conflict of interest with the Author of the manuscript;
— ask that all parties involved in publishing report a potential conflict of interest;
— make decisions to publish information from the Author concerning scientific and / or financial conflicts of interest if it is not confidential and may affect the published work evaluation by readers or academia;
— publish corrections if a conflict of interest arose after the paper was published.
The Author should:
— indicate his employer and the source of research funding.
The Reviewer should:
— inform the Editor-in-Chief about conflicts of interest (dual commitments, competing interests) and decline to review the manuscript.
If a situation is encountered involving a violation of the ethics of publication by the Editor, the Authors or the Reviewers, a mandatory investigation is required. It applies to both published and unpublished materials. The Editorial Board should demand clarification, without involving those who may have a conflict of interest with any of the parties.
If the material containing significant inaccuracies has been published, it should be immediately corrected in a way accessible to readers and indexing systems.
|Institute of Philology
Nikolaeva st., 8, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russian Federation
|© Institute of Philology|