The scientific journal Russian political science in its activities is guided by the principles of publication ethics, developed on the basis of international standards:
- Provisions adopted at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, 22-24 July 2010, http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8102);
- Guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (TheCommitteeonPublication COPE, http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines);
- Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics, http://publicet.org/code/).
- Author ethics
By submitting an article to the journal, the authors confirm their authorship of the submitted materials. Each author must sign an application for publication. The very fact of submission of the article and its accompanying documents means that all the authors indicated in the manuscript agree with the composition of the group of authors, the content of the article and the terms of the License Agreement. The procedure for specifying the authors and co-authors of the article is agreed by them independently.
The chief editor has the right to request the information confirming the contribution of any of the co-authors to the writing of the article in order to minimize the cases of inclusion in the author’s team of persons not directly related to the study (financial sponsors, team leaders, etc.). The authors can express their gratitude to the person mentioned above in the text of the article or in a note to it. Provided by the author (authors) false, unreliable or falsified information in the accompanying documents to the article serve the reason for rejection of the article, regardless of the results of the review.
1.2. The content of the article
The article submitted by the author (s) to the journal editorial board has the following formal requirements:
a) The article must be written in Russian or in English language;
b) The article must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the journal;
c) The article must correspond to the subject of the issue of the journal.
The article submitted for publication should contain the statement of the problem, goals and objectives of the research; the determination of the place of the question posed by the author in the available world and/or domestic scientific literature; the results of the original author’s research (qualitative or quantitative analysis of primary empirical or processing of secondary data, historical research, analysis of the evolution of scientific views on the selected topic, etc.); conclusions consistent to the goals and objectives of the research. It is recommended to use the IMRAD framework (“introduction, methods, results and discussion”).
1.3. Borrowing, plagiarism, duplicate publications
In the text of the manuscript, the author must explicitly point out all the external sources of information essential for this article, organizing them in the form of quotations or references. It is not recommended to make references to the dissertations if the printed publication exists. References to educational or reference books are not allowed unless absolutely necessary. When writing articles, it is advisable to take into account generally accepted international practice of legal restrictions on plagiarism. Violation of copyright and related rights by direct (textual) or veiled (substantive) borrowing of materials, ideas and research results is inadmissible.
It is necessary to take into account the existence of primary (actually authors’) and secondary texts that do not contain their own conclusions. In such cases, references must be made to the primary sources. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable. The author should avoid self-plagiarism (using of the text or the fragments of the text of his earlier publications or his dissertation). If necessary, the author should notify the editorial board of the journal about all his works (as well as all the works of his co-authors), which intersect with the article proposed for publication in the journal, and which have been submitted for consideration in other publications.
Previously published articles (in whole or in part), as well as articles submitted for consideration to other journals, are not accepted for consideration. The percentage of uniqueness / originality of the text should not be less than 75 %. In some cases (scientific dispute with an opponent, textual and/or substantive analysis of the work, etc.) it is possible to publish materials with less originality. The decision on the expediency of such publication is made by the editorial board of the journal on the basis of the information of the chief editor.
1.4. Author’s responsibility for the information provided
The authors and co-authors of the article are fully responsible for the materials provided: for the accuracy of reproduction of names, quotations, formulas, figures; for the completeness and truthfulness (reliability) of the documents provided for publication.
If the author finds out some significant errors or inaccuracies in the published article, he is obliged as soon as possible to notify in writing the editorial board of the journal in order to take all possible efforts to resolve the situation. By submitting the article to the journal, the author guarantees that the material does not contain scientific and technical information relating to state, official or commercial secrets. If necessary, the chief editor of the journal may ask the author to confirm the possibility of publishing the data provided by him. When publishing the results of empirical research, it is necessary to keep the confidentiality of the information (names, circumstances of the experiment or others, which may indicate its participants). The revealing of the specified data is possible either in encrypted form or with the written consent of the participants of the experiment (test subjects).
The researcher is personally responsible for the quality of research, conclusions and results, the validity of the research methods and techniques used, respecting of the rights of people involved in the study, objectivity in the interpretation of the results. In theoretical studies, the analysis of literature on the problem of research the researcher should avoid arbitrary interpretation of the authors’ ideas, leading to distortion of their position, incorrect citation, eclecticism, historical incorrectness, one-sided critical representation of the authors’ positions on any research issue.
Authors should avoid the use of personal, critical or disparaging remarks and accusations against other researchers.
In the case of negative results of the study, the author should remember that the publication of these results is possible only in exceptional cases, because most of these results are intermediate and do not have great scientific value. The decision to publish articles of the specified format is made by the editorial board of the journal on the basis of the information of the chief editor. The editorial board rejects without consideration the materials containing calls for the seizure of power, violent change of the constitutional system and the integrity of the state; aimed at inciting national, class, social, religious intolerance or discord, at propaganda of war, pornography, the cult of violence and cruelty.
The editorial board reserves the right to inform the relevant state bodies about such materials.
1.5. Interaction with the editors
The fact of submitting the article to the journal is the fact that the author accepts the rules of registration, conditions of consideration and reviewing of articles and publication of the text of the article, including its editing without changing the scientific content of the author’s text; its translation and other processing, granting the journal the right to use at its own discretion the personal data of the author and his article in order to bring to public, reproduction, distribution and placement of the text of the article or its parts in information and other databases.
- Chief editor’s ethics
2.1. Chief editor’s responsibility
The chief editor makes every effort to ensure the high quality of the materials published in the journal, their substantial integrity, as well as promptly solves the arising problems.
2.2. Chief editor and editorial board
In case of impossibility for the members of the editorial board to make a decision of the expediency of publication of the material in the journal, the final decision on the destiny of this material is made by the chief editor. If the editorial board does not share the views of the author of the published manuscript, it has the right to report it in a footnote.
2.3. Chief editor and reviewers
The chief editor and the reviewer should be impartial and objective when considering the article. The chief editor should not reveal the author the name of the reviewer, and give to the reviewer the name of the author.
- Reviewer ethics
3.1. Mandatory peer review processing
All the scientific articles submitted to the journal are subjected to mandatory peer review processing. In case of rejection of the manuscript on the basis of a negative assessment of the reviewer, the responsible chief editor on behalf of the editorial board must provide the author with a reasoned refusal to publish and/or send him a copy of the review. The editorial board creates a database of experts (reviewers), actively working in the field of political science. When forming the database of experts, the scientific name, experience of the examination, integrity and commitment of candidates are taken into account. The review of the article is organized by the chief editor. The review involves specialists having the closest to the topic of the article scientific specialization and scientific publications on this topic.
3.2. Type of review
The editorial board of the journal exercises double-blind peer review. In this type of review, the identity of the reviewer is unknown to the author, as well as the identity of the author is unknown to the reviewer. The manuscripts submitted to the journal are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information not subjected to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the articles for their own needs. The reviewer should write a review objectively and constructively, clearly and convincingly expressing his opinion, give clear and reasonable recommendations aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript, abstaining from personal criticism of the author, hostile statements and comments concerning the personal qualities of the author; from assessing the religious, political or other views of the author. If the reviewer does not have enough time for reviewing or does not consider himself competent in the problem of the article, he must promptly notify the editorial board of the journal and request to be excluded from the review process.
3.3. The content of the reviews
The reviewer prepares a review on the form, which is provided by the editorial board together with the text of the article. The review covers the issues of compliance of the article with the subject and scientific direction of the journal, scientific novelty, compliance with modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought, the validity of the author’s conclusions, scientific and/or practical significance of the article and other issues. The reviewer notes the positive aspects and shortcomings of the article, gives the author recommendations on correction and addition of the provided material.
The final review should contain reasoned conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear, unambiguous recommendation on the expediency (or inexpediency) of its publication or comments that allow the author to make corrections. According to the results of the review, the article can be: a) rejected, b) accepted for publication with the demand to make corrections, c) accepted for publication without correction.
3.4. Rejection or improvement of the article on the reviewer’s comments
If plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of the results of the study is detected in the text, the article is rejected without the right to further processing or revision.
In case of a negative review of the article, the author is refused. According to the decision of the chief editor and the editorial board, the article can be sent for re-review to another reviewer. The final decision of the re-review and publication of the article is made by the chief editor and the editorial board of the journal. If the reviewer indicates the need to make changes to the article in the overall positive assessment of the work, the article is sent to the author with comments of the reviewer and the Editor. The author should make all necessary changes and return the corrected text to the Editor within the period not exceeding 14 calendar days. Otherwise, the publication of the article may be rejected. The corrected article is re-submitted to the reviewer, who made critical comments for re-consideration. After the answer of the reviewer, the chief editor and the editorial board make the final decision on the publication of the article. The author is informed about the decision of the chief editor. The rejected article can be re-considered only in case of its substantial processing by the author on the rights of a newly received material.
3.5. Conflict of interest.
In case of a conflict of interest between the parties involved in the review process, due to participation in financial, professional, scientific and other activities, the author should explain all the possibilities of affecting someone’s interests in the Covering letter to the responsible chief editor. Personal interests should not take place when deciding on the submitted publication.