The Editorial Board of the scholarly journal Nasledie Vekov [Heritage of Centuries] commits to the internationally accepted principles of publication ethics expressed, in particular, in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Ethical Code of Academic Periodicals, as well as takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers.
To avoid any unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presenting false information, etc.) and to ensure a high quality of scientific publications and public recognition of the author’s scientific results, each member of the Editorial Board, Publishers, Authors, Peer-Reviewers and institutions involved in the publishing process shall adhere to ethical standards, rules and regulations and take any reasonable steps to prevent their violations. The compliance with these ethical guidelines by all the parties ensures authors’ intellectual property rights, improves the quality of the journal and excludes a possible misuse of copyright material in the interests of particular individuals.
Key terms used in the given provision:
Publication ethics is a system of professional conduct standards in relations between Authors, Peer-Reviewers, Editors, Publishers and Readers when creating, disseminating and using scientific publications.
Author is a person or a group of persons (Group of Authors) involved in publishing the results of a scientific research.
Editor-in-Chief is a person who heads the Editorial Board and makes final decisions concerning production and publication of the journal.
Deputy Editor-in-Chief is a person who helps the Editor-in-Chief, develops the concept of each issue, supervises the review process, and promotes the journal and its articles in the scholarly community.
Editor is a representative of the journal or the publisher responsible for selecting and preparing materials for publication and encouraging communication between the authors and the readers of the journal.
Managing Editor is a person who interacts with the Author informing the latter about the status of the submitted manuscript, checks the manuscript for plagiarism, sends it to the Section Editor and qualified, independent and experienced Reviewers, and sends reviews to Authors.
Executive Editor is a person who assists the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor in preparing manuscripts for publication. His/her main goal is to ensure the high quality of published materials through monitoring their compliance with editorial policies, procedures and standards.
Editor (= Section Editor) is a qualified and competent person who is responsible for primary evaluation of the submitted manuscript, selecting Reviewers, and finalizing manuscript preparation for publication.
Editorial Board is an advisory body consisting of competent persons, who assist the Editor-in-Chief in selecting, preparing and assessing manuscripts, as well as promoting the Journal and the papers in the international scientific community.
Publications Council is an advisory body consisting of competent persons, a group of Editors, who assist the Editor-in-Chief and promote the journal and its articles in the scholarly community.
Peer-Reviewer (=Reviewer) is an expert acting on behalf of the journal or publisher and providing scientific assessments of authorial material in order to consider its publishing.
Manuscript is an author’s work submitted for publication in the journal.
Article is an author’s finished and published work.
Plagiarism is a wrongful appropriation of another Author’s scientific or artistic work, ideas, discoveries or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law and, as such, can entail legal liability. Publisher is a legal or natural person responsible for publication.
Reader is any person who has familiarized himself/herself with the published materials.
1. Code of Conduct for Publishers
In carrying out their activities, publishers are responsible for publication of Author’s works, which implies abiding by the following basic principles and procedures to:
1.1. Encourage the Editorial Board, the Editorial and Publishing Group, Peer-Reviewers and Authors to fulfill ethical obligations in compliance with these requirements.
1.2. Assist the Editorial Board of the journal in considering claims to ethical aspects of the published materials and promote interaction with other journals and/or publishers, if it favors the Editors to perform their duties.
1.3. Ensure confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and any information until its publishing.
1.4. Be aware of the fact that the activities of the journal are non-commercial, without any profit motives.
1.5. Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
1.6. Enable the Editorial Board to exclude publications containing plagiarism and false data.
1.7. The Publisher has a right to reject the manuscript or require its revision, if its presentation does not comply with the guidelines adopted by the journal and agreed with the Publisher.
1.8. The manuscript, if accepted for publication, is made available to the public on the website; copyright holders retain their rights.
1.9. Publish information about research funding, if the Author gives such information.
1.10. When factual, grammatical, stylistic and any other errors are detected, the Editorial Board shall take all corrective measures.
1.11. Harmonize all Editors’ alteration in the manuscript with the Author.
1.12. Publish content on a timely basis.
2. Code of Conduct for Authors
When submitting to Nasledie Vekov [Heritage of Centuries], Authors (Groups of Authors) are aware that they bear primary responsibility for novelty and validity of research results, which implies adhering to the following principles:
2.1. Authors shall provide reliable research results. Deliberately false or fraudulent statements are not acceptable.
2.2. Authors shall ensure that research results are completely original. Every borrowed fragment or statement must be accompanied by a mandatory indication of the Author and the original source. Excessive borrowing and any form of plagiarism including non-documented citations, paraphrasing or appropriating another person’s research results are non-ethical and unacceptable. The Editorial Board regards borrowings without references as plagiarism.
2.3. Authors shall only provide authentic facts and information; give enough information for verifying and repeating other researchers’ experiments; not use the information obtained in private, without open written consent; not allow data fabrication and falsification.
2.4. Authors shall avoid manuscript duplication (in the cover letter the Author should indicate that the work is published for the first time). If some elements of the manuscript have been previously published, the Author should refer to the earlier work and specify the differences.
2.5. Authors shall not submit the manuscript that has been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as the manuscript already published in another journal.
2.6. It is important to recognize the contribution of all persons who, in one way or another, participated in the research; in particular, the manuscript should contain references to those works that significantly influenced the research.
2.7. Authors shall adhere to ethical principles when criticizing or commenting a third-party research.
2.8. Authors shall follow the principles of bioethics when conducting an animal research.
2.9. All those who have made significant contributions should be described as Co-Authors. It is not acceptable to list persons who did not take part in the research.
2.10. Authors shall respect the work of the Editorial Board and Peer-Reviewers and eliminate the indicated inaccuracies and justify them.
2.11. Authors shall submit and prepare their manuscripts in compliance with the journal guidelines.
2.12. If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the manuscript under consideration or after its publication, he/she should immediately inform the Editorial Board.
2.13. Authors shall prove to the Editorial Board or the Publisher that their initial manuscript is valid or correct substantial errors if the Editorial Board has become aware of them from the third parties.
3. Code of Сonduct for Peer-Reviewers
Peer-Reviewers provide scientific expertise of copyright material, hence all their actions shall be impartial and the following principles shall be adhered to:
3.1. The manuscript received for peer-reviewing shall be treated as a confidential document which cannot be passed for discussion or examination to the third parties, if they are not authorized by the Editorial Board.
3.2. Peer-Reviewers shall know that the manuscripts they receive are intellectual property of Authors and are not to be disclosed. Confidentiality may only be breached if the Peer-Кeviewer declares unreliability or falsification of the information set forth in the manuscript.
3.3. Peer-Reviewers shall inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial or partial similarity of the manuscript under consideration and any other work, as well as the absence of references to statements, conclusions or arguments, which have been previously published in the papers of this or another Author.
3.4. Peer-Reviewers shall note the relevant published works that are not cited (in the article).
3.5. Peer-Reviewers shall give an objective and reasoned assessment of the research results, as well as clearly justified recommendations. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate.
3.6. Peer-Reviewers’ comments and suggestions shall be objective and essential, aimed at improving the academic record of the manuscript.
3.7. Peer-Reviewers shall make decisions based on particular facts and justify them.
3.8. Peer-Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for personal gains.
3.9. Peer-Reviewers cannot take advantage of their awareness of the manuscript content until its publication.
3.10. Peer-Reviewers, who, in their opinion, do not possess the required expertise to complete the review, or who cannot be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with any of the Authors or institutions, shall request the Editor to exclude them from the peer-reviewing process.
3.11. The manuscript review is confidential. The name of the Peer-Reviewer is known to the Editor-in-Chief, to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and to the Managing Editor. This information is not disclosed.
4. Code of Conduct for the Editor-in-Chief
In carrying out his/her activities, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making Author’s works public, which implies abiding by the following basic principles:
4.1. When deciding on publication, the Editor-in-Chief shall be guided by reliability and scholarly value of the manuscript.
4.2. The Editor-in-Chief shall evaluate intellectual content of the manuscript, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the Author.
4.3. Unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts shall not be used in personal interests or passed to the third parties without the Author’s written consent. The information or ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to possible advantages shall stay confidential and not be used for personal benefit.
4.4. The Editor-in-Chief shall not allow the information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
4.5. The Editor-in-Chief commits to:
- continuously improving the journal;
- following the principle of freedom of opinion;
- striving to meet the needs of Readers and Authors of the journal;
- eliminating the influence of business or political interests on decision-making when publishing materials;
- deciding on publication of materials according to the following main criteria: appropriateness of the manuscript to the journal; relevance, novelty and scholarly value of the submitted manuscript; presentation clarity; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. A decision on publication is made on the basis of the quality of the research and its relevance;
- taking all reasonable steps to provide a high quality of the published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information.
- considering recommendations of Peer-Reviewers when taking a final decision on publishing the manuscript. The responsibility for a decision on publication is entirely borne by the Editorial Board of the journal;
- justifying decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript;
- allowing the Author of the peer-reviewed material to substantiate his/her research viewpoint;
- not revoking the decision on publication taken by the previous board if the list of the Editorial Board members has been updated.
4.6. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Publisher should not leave unanswered the complaints 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. Publishing Principles
5.1. Complying with publication ethics by the Editorial Board.
5.2. Complying with basic principles when rejecting manuscripts.
5.3. Maintaining the integrity of the academic record.
5.4. Protecting intellectual property and ethical standards in case of any commercial considerations.
5.5. Always being willing to publish corrections, clarifications on rejections and apologies when needed.
5.6. Preventing publishing plagiarism and fraudulent data.
6. Conflict of Interest
To avoid any breach of publication ethics, it is crucial to eliminate any conflicts of interest of all the parties involved in publishing. Conflicts of interest arise when Authors, Peer-Reviewers or the 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 shall bear the following responsibilities.
The Editor shall:
- pass the manuscript for consideration to another Editorial Board member if the initially appointed Peer-Reviewer has a conflict of interest with the Author of the manuscript;
- inquire all the parties involved in publishing about a probable conflict of interest;
- make decisions to publish the information referred to in the letter of the Author, concerning research and/or financial conflicts of interest, if it is not confidential and may affect the published work assessment by readers or the scientific community;
- publish corrections if a conflict of interest became known after publication.
The Author shall:
- list all known and potential sources of conflict of interest in the cover letter;
- indicate his employer and the source of research funding;
- if there are no conflicts of interest, Authors should clearly state so in the cover letter.
The Peer-Reviewer shall:
- inform the Editor-in-Chief about conflicts of interest (dual commitments, competing interests) and decline to peer-review the manuscript.
If publication ethics is breached by the Editor, Authors or Peer-Reviewers, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both already published and unpublished materials from the moment of publication. The Editorial Board shall seek 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 shall be immediately modified in a way accessible to readers and indexing systems.