Publication ethics


The publication of research materials is an integral part of a scientist’s professional activity, one of the most important channels of scientific communication and factors of progress in science.  The important role played by scientific publication in the development of the relevant field of knowledge obliges all parties to the publishing process - Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and Readers - to comply with high moral and ethical standards.  The editors of the Journal “Discourse” are committed to following the principles of scientific and ethical publishing.

Section I. General Provisions

Editorial office of the jornal "Discourse" to carry out following procedures:

  1. Follows the recommendations of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE) and the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications”/
  2. Guided by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991 N 2124-I "On the Media", the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation "Copyright" and international standards for authors (Responsible research publication: international standards for authors).
  3. Accepts and prepares for publication materials submitted by the author in accordance with the Rules of cooperation with the editors and the Copyright agreement.

The following are ethical guidelines for party liability based on materials from the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).  All participants in the publication process should carefully read them and comply with them at all stages of publication

Section II. Principles of liability of the parties

General principles of liability

Plagiarism and copyright: all parties commit themselves to resist all forms of plagiarism and copyright infringement in any form.

Confidentiality: all parties (editors, authors, reviewers) are obligated to observe the principle of confidentiality at all stages of interaction: not to disclose personal data, not to transfer them to third parties and not to use for personal mercenary interests.

1. Responsibility of the editors (editor-in-chief)

1.1. The editor-in-chief is responsible for all materials published in the Journal.  The editor-in-chief formulates the Journal’s policy and takes all reasonable steps possible to ensure the high quality and high scientific level of the published material and maintain the internal uniformity of the Journal.

1.2. The chief editor respects the following principles:

1.3. The editor-in-chief interacts with the authors on the principles of fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, transparency and is personally responsible for the decision to accept or reject the manuscript of the paper submitted to the editorial office.

1.4. The editor-in-chief should, within 2 months from the day the manuscript is registered, determine the fate of the received manuscript.

1.5. The decision to accept the paper is based solely on an assessment of the relevance, originality (novelty), significance, reliability, consistency and clarity of the presentation of the material, the availability of reviewers' opinions.  The editor evaluates the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, political or other preferences of the Authors.

1.6. The editors conduct double blind peer review and provide expert assessment by an uninterested, independent, competent specialist in the field of research (see the Review section).

1.7. In the case of objective claims, complaints or conflicts, the editorial office undertakes to take all possible measures to protect the parties whose rights have been infringed, to argue their position, if necessary, publish a revised version and apologize to the authors, readers and the scientific community.

See more details: Responsible research publication: international standards for authors

2. Responsibility of the authors

2.1. Researchers are required to ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced; they should not allow the presentation of material misleading readers, selective or ambiguous presentation of facts.

2.2. The work should contain significant new results and appropriately reflect the use by the author of scientific works of his predecessors and colleagues.  Authors should not paraphrase, partially copy their / others' works or cite text without reference.  Plagiarism in all its manifestations is unacceptable.  Authors should not copy from other publications references to works with which they themselves have not familiarized themselves.

2.3. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the source.  Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the provision of grants, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of work related to confidential sources.

2.4. The published research should be qualitatively and thoroughly executed, and all the data presented in the papershold be reliable, objective and not falsified.  The authors are collectively responsible for all the data provided in the paper (facts, results, conclusions, theories, hypotheses, etc.) within the framework of the relevant legislation of the Russian Federation.

2.5. Authors should ensure that the paper is original and has not previously been published or submitted to another edition at the same time.

2.6. Authors should objectively and honestly indicate the contribution of each of them to the work, avoiding false reporting of authorship.  Authors undertake to acknowledge the contribution of persons involved or influencing the research or publication, if any.

2.7. If there is a sponsor, authors should provide information on the degree of sponsor participation in the project. Research sponsors should not have the right to veto the publication of results that are negative for their products or designs.

2.8. Authors should report the absence or existence of conflicts of interest with the publisher, sponsor, co-author, printing house, etc., if any.

2.9. Authors, upon detection of inaccuracies, errors or signs of violation of publication ethics, should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

2.10. The published study should be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards.  If people are involved in experiments, the authors should obtain appropriate approvals, licenses, and registrations in advance of the study, in compliance with applicable laws and regulations (British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines).

2.11. Mock-ups of the paper should be submitted to the editorial office in accordance with the Rules for Manuscript Design.

2.12. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having an impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work.

3. Reviewers Responsibility

3.1. The reviewer should conduct an expert assessment of the paper in accordance with the "Organization and Review Procedure" and in the interests of the scientific community and society as a whole.

3.2. The reviewer should comply with the following ethical responsibilities:

3.3. The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review in the following cases: disagreement with the review rules adopted in the Journal, lack of competence, inability to fulfill the terms / conditions of the review, in the case of personal interest or any conflicts of interest with the authors of the paper, as well as due to other  moral / ethical contradictions.  The reviewer should provide the editors with accurate and truthful information about their personal and professional knowledge and review experience.

3.4. The reviewer is obliged to give only an objective impartial assessment, not to allow the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of the author, as well as commercial considerations to influence the content of the review.  Personal criticism and personal comments on the manuscript author are not acceptable.  The review should be objective and constructive, pursuing the main goal - to help authors improve their manuscript.  The opinion and opinion of the reviewer should be reasonable and confirmed by evidence and relevant references.

3.5. The unpublished manuscript received by the reviewer is confidential: the reviewer agrees not to disclose the information entrusted to him to third parties and not to use it for personal gain, the benefit of other persons or organizations.


Section III. Unfair practices and unethical behavior

The following is regarded as behavior that does not meet ethical and scientific standards, and is interpreted as fraud. All participants in the publication process should avoid them in their work.


Section IV. Unfair practices and unethical behavior

1. Identification of ethical violations.

1.1. A breach of publication ethics can be detected and brought to the attention of the editor or publisher by any person at any time.

1.2. Ethics violations may include, but are not limited to, the examples given in the section on publication ethics.

1.3. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such behavior, he should provide enough information or enough evidence to initiate an investigation.  All applications should be dealt with in the most serious manner until a final decision or conclusion is reached.

2. Investigation

2.1.The initial decision should  be made by the editor, who should consult with the publishers when appropriate.

2.2. All necessary data should be collected, but dissemination of information outside the circle of those who should be in the know should be avoided.

3. Minor violations

3.1. Minor violations may be considered without the involvement of third parties. In any case, the author should be given the opportunity to answer any allegations.

4. Serious violations

4.1. Serious violations may require the employer to be notified of the accused.  The editor, together with the publisher or members of the scientific community, should decide on the advisability of informing the employer either by independently studying the available data, or by further consulting with a limited number of experts.

5. Consequences (according to the degree of increase in their severity; can be applied both individually and collectively)

5.1. Informing or educating the author or reviewer about the facts of misunderstanding or violation of publication standards.

5.2. A warning letter to the author or reviewer revealing facts of ethical violation and warning of possible consequences.

5.3. The official publication on the site of the identified violations.

5.4. Publication of an editorial text detailing the essence of violations.

5.5. A formal letter to the head of the department in which the author or reviewer works.

5.6. Formal recall of an paper from the Journal along with informing the head of the department in which the author or reviewer works, international database indexing Journals and readers of the Journal.

5.7. Imposing a ban on the publication of this author (attraction of this reviewer) for a certain period.

5.8. Report on a case that has become known to a professional organization or to a higher authority for the purpose of further investigation and further measures.

6. Retraction of publication

6.1 Retraction of a paper is a mechanism for correcting published information and alerting readers to publications containing such serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may result from good faith or deliberate misconduct. Testimonials are also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (that is, when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and concealment of important conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.

6.2. The issue of rectracting a publication is considered if:

6.3. Only published papers are subject to retract.

6.4 If only a small part of the paper (for example, several sentences) is plagiarized, the editors should decide whether it would be better for the readers (and for the author of the work) if the paper is amended with correct links to the source than a full review of the paper.

6.5. The paper is retracted at the official request of the editorial board of the Journal or author.

6.6. If the author / group of authors finds it necessary to retract the paper, they turn to the editorial office, reasonably explaining the reason for their decision. If the editors agree to retract the paper, then it independently revises the text.

6.7. If the editorial board decides to retract the text on the basis of its examination or the information received by the editorial office, it informs the authors / authors about their decision. The author (lead author in the case of collective authorship) gets acquainted with the wording justifying the retraction of the paper.

6.8. Having decided to retract the paper, the editors draw up a notice of retraction, which indicates the reason for the retract (in the case of plagiarism - indicating the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction. The notice also indicates the person retracting the paper. Notifications are published in electronic and print versions of the magazine. The title of the notice of retraction includes the names of the authors and the title of the retracted paper.

6.9. The retracted paper remains on the journal’s website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the word RETRACTED and the retract date are inscribed on the electronic version of the text, the same mark is placed on the paper in the table of contents of the issue.

6.10. Retracted papers are not deleted from the archive on the journal website.

6.11. If duplication of a publication is found, the editorial staff of the publications discusses the situation among themselves and can take one or two ways: • the text is retracted, at the same time, by all publications that published material received as a result of fan mailing; • Consensus is reached on one version of the text, which will not be retracted from publication (usually the earliest).

6.12. If it is impossible to obtain convincing evidence of the reliability of the publication, the publisher publishes an expression of doubt, and does not retract the publication immediately.

6.13. Such expressions of doubt, like notices of retract, refer to the original publication and contain reasons for expressing doubt.

6.14. If more convincing evidence becomes available later, the expression of doubt should be replaced by a notice of retraction (if the paper was determined to be inaccurate) or a statement of justification related to the expression of doubt (if the reliability of the paper was proved and the author’s reputation was restored).