Ethics

Системная психология и социология » Ethics

EDITORIAL ETHICS

General Principles

Editorial board and council policy of "Systems Psychology and Sociology” Journal is based on the international practices of copyright and ethical principles, and particularly on academic publication guidance by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org).

The editorial staff of "Systems Psychology and Sociology” publishes manuscripts, meeting the requirements of scientific credibility, significance, novelty and relevance of submissions.

Manuscripts that contents violate the Russian Federation law are prohibited from publication.

EDITORIAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Authors, editors, reviewers and publishes are responsible for the quality of published articles and disseminating the results of researches;

The entire contents of the journal’s issues, with the exception of drafting materials, are reviewed by independent experts, applying a double blind peer review, combining processing transparency with confidentiality of authors and reviewers;

The editorial staff provides free access to publications by transferring issues of the journal for storage to leading libraries and repositories of scientific information in Russia;

The decision on acceptance of the article for publication is taken in a limited time (on average, it takes between one month to three months). All the necessary information is provided on the website of the Journal in the "Author Guidelines” section. It is also provides in the published issue of the Journal at least once per year regularly;

The editorial staff ensures the removal of unscrupulous publications from the scientific space and also it cooperates with scientific associations on Ethics issues in Science;

Official agreements between the publisher, editors and authors;

The editorial staff maintains an open and sincere scientific discussion between authors and thereby the authors should mention the sources of financing and organizations supporting the studies of the submitted publication;

Manuscript rejection is provided in cases of direct borrowing or any other proved academic misconduct without adding the reference (plagiarism);

Negotiations on scientific editing, amendments and proofreading with the authors are provided;

The empirical research published in the article may not contain information that can violate the rights of individuals participating in the study to privacy and confidentiality;

Publications are built on the principles of respect cultural, individual, role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, disability, language, socio-economic status;

In case of any conflict situations related to professional ethics between authors, editorial board, publisher or reviewers, the editorial staff creates a working ethics commission in order to clarify the nature of the conflict of interests, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict in accordance with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR REVIEWERS

To improve the quality of the presented research manuscripts, the reviewers provide detailed argumentation for their recommendations, applying a double blind peer review. The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the submitted manuscript.

1. Expertise in one or more aspects of the work is essential for reviewers, but the qualities of a good reviewer go well beyond that. The reviewer must be objective and must not have conflicts of interest that might compromise the objectivity or perceived value of the review. The reviewer must have good judgment and must be able to think critically and logically. Reviewers must have PhD in the relevant fields of science.

2. Reviewers must remember that the manuscript is the intellectual property of the author and they must not use the information, obtained in the course of reviewing, for acting in their own interest of in the interests of a third party.

3. The peer review process should be conducted confidentially. The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed. The review is made available to the author in any form, but without information about the reviewer.

4. Reviewing time takes one/three months from the receipt of the article by the reviewer. The decision on further reviewing of the article is made by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

5. The review is made available to the author in any form. The review may also be sent by e-mail with a read notification message. For this purpose executive secretary of the edition sends the text of the review but without personal signature of the reviewer and a cover letter to the author, as well as the text of the article with the comments requiring improvement. After the review procedure is repeated.

6. The final decision on the possibility of article publication is made by the editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief. The editors do not further discuss the declined submissions with the authors.

7. The editorial staff informs the author about the decision made by the article at his request.

8. Within five years all reviews are stored in a written form at the editorial office.

The form of the review contains the following estimates:

topicality of the issues discussed in the article;

compliance of presented results with the declared subject matter of the article;

completeness of the literature references;

authors' scientific contribution: the presence and significance of new scientific findings in this article;

completeness, validity and correctness of applied body of mathematics and theoretical positions;

correct terminology, the clarity of presentation, language style.

The review concludes with recommendation:

on the possibility of article publication;

on the possibility of article publication, taking into account the author's amendments;

on refusal to the authors in publishing the article.

REVIEWERS SHOULD REMEMBER:

Accepting for review only the manuscripts, which are within the scope of their expertise

Timely reviews

Confidentiality

Objective and constructive criticism

Reviewers must not use the information, obtained in the course of reviewing, for acting in their own interest of in the interests of a third party

Informing the editorial team about any potential conflicts of interests

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR AUTHORS

All the people, who made meaningful contribution to the research and/or manuscript preparation, should be indicated as authors. The order of following is established by the authors themselves.

AUTHOR PRINCIPLES

Authors’ manuscripts should meet the requirements of scientific credibility, significance, novelty and relevance of submissions;

Don’t forget to mention all, who have made a significant contribution to the preparation of the text of the article;

Any significant mistakes or impressions, be they detected in the course of manuscript processing or after publication, must be reported to the editorial team for corrections or retraction of such publication;

All kinds of plagiarism are unacceptable.

СИСТЕМНАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ И СОЦИОЛОГИЯ

Ethics

СИСТЕМНАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ
И СОЦИОЛОГИЯ