The policy of the editorial board of the scientific journal "Science and Practice in Education: an Electronic Scientific Journal" is based on legislative requirements regarding copyright; ethical principles supported by the community of leading publishers of scientific periodicals; and on the principles of scientific truth, scientific honesty, rejection of plagiarism and slander.
When forming the editorial policy, the journal proceeds from the recommendations of international organizations on the ethics of scientific publications. The editorial policy of the journal is based on the requirements set out in international standards(provisions developed by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publication), provisions adopted at the 2nd World Conference on Scientific Integrity (Singapore, 22-24 July 2010, Ethical Rules for Scientific Publications, Elsevier Publishing House); requirements of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (Declaration "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications").
The editor-in-chief of the scientific journal decides on the publication of copyright materials after their approval at a meeting of the editorial board. The basis for making this decision is the scientific reliability and significance of the publication for the scientific community. The editor is guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal, legal requirements regarding such issues as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. When making these decisions, the editor can consult with editorial board members or reviewers.
The editor-in-chief should ensure fairness, impartiality and timeliness of the review process. As a rule, scientific articles should be studied by at least two objective and independent experts and, if necessary, the editor can get acquainted with other views.
The Editor-in-Chief shall select reviewers with the necessary expertise in the relevant field. To identify any possibility of a biased approach, the editor should examine all statements about possible conflicts of interest and comments by self-quoting reviewers.
The editor-in-chief should evaluate the manuscripts according to their scientific content regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political worldviews.
The editorial policy of the journal should promote transparency and full and impartial reporting by authors.
Journal key figures
The editor-in-chief should not try to influence the rating of the magazine, artificially overstating any indicators of the magazine. In particular, the editor-in-chief should not require the inclusion of references to articles of this (or any other) journal, except for purely scientific justification, and may not require authors to include references to their own articles or to products/services in which the editor-in-chief has an interest.
The editor-in-chief should ensure the confidentiality of all journal submissions and all peer review information sharing processes, unless otherwise agreed with the respective authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances, the editor-in-chief may share a limited amount of information with editors of other journals if he considers it necessary to investigate an alleged violation of ethical standards of scientific work.
In addition to cases where the magazine uses an open peer review system and/or if reviewers have agreed to disclose their data, the editor-in-chief should ensure that reviewers' personal data is protected.
Unpublished materials from the manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in the editor-in-chief's own research without the explicit written consent of their author. Confidential scientific information obtained during the review should be kept secret and not used for personal gain.
Supervision of published materials
The editor-in-chief should work to protect the reputation of published materials by studying and evaluating alleged or alleged violations (research, publications, reviews and editorial activities) together with the scientific community.
This includes interaction with the author of the manuscript or careful consideration of the relevant complaint or claims made. To detect violations such as plagiarism, the editor must use the appropriate licensing systems.
The editor-in-chief, who has received convincing evidence of a violation, must inform the members of the editorial board / scientific community about it, organizing an immediate notification to the author of the need to amend or withdraw the publication, depending on the situation.
Influence on the decisions of the editorial board
Reviewing helps the editor-in-chief in making decisions about publication, and can also help the author improve the quality of his work. Reviewing is an essential component of official scientific communication. Reviewers must comply with the rules and regulations of fair review.
Any selected reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the research presented in the manuscript or is not sure about the possibility of preparing a review on time should notify the editor and refuse to participate in the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review are considered confidential documents. Reviewers should not share information about it with anyone or communicate directly with the author without the permission of the editor.
Unpublished materials from the submitted manuscripts cannot be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of their author. Confidential information obtained during the review process must be kept secret and cannot be used for personal gain.
Emphasis on ethics
The reviewer should be particularly attentive to possible ethical issues and should bring them to the attention of the editor-in-chief, including any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published work from the reviewer's professional competence. Any statement that research findings, conclusions or arguments have already been published should be accompanied by a reference.
Standards of objectivity and conflict of interest
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.
Before agreeing to prepare a review of a work with which a conflict of interest may arise as a result of competitive, collective or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions associated with this work, reviewers should consult with the editor.
If the reviewer assumes that the author includes references to the work of the reviewer (or the work of his colleagues), then this should be used solely for scientific justification, and not for the purpose of increasing the number of references to the reviewer or increasing the attractiveness of his/her work (or the work of his/her colleagues).
Requirements for manuscripts
The authors of the article are considered to be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formulation and solution of the problem considered in the article and share responsibility for the results obtained. The author who submitted the manuscript of the article to the editorial office assumes responsibility for coordinating with the other authors the choice of a periodical for its publication, the reliability of contact information.
Authors of publications based on the results of scientific research should provide accurate information about the work carried out and an objective justification of its significance. The manuscript should be sufficiently detailed and have sufficient bibliographic references. Fraud or knowingly erroneous statements are unethical behavior and unacceptable.
Reviews and scientific articles in professional publications should also be accurate and objective, and the editorial board's point of view should be clearly indicated.
Scientific novelty and recognition of primary sources
Authors should make sure that they have submitted a new (original) scientific work, and if the authors have used the work and/or formulations of other persons, then they should be framed as citations or there should be appropriate references to them, while, if necessary, all necessary permits should be obtained.
It is always necessary to recognize the work of other authors. Authors should refer to publications that influenced the submitted work or gave the work an appropriate context within the framework of a larger scientific work. Information obtained privately, for example, in conversations, in correspondence or during discussions with third parties, should not be used or provided without the explicit written permission of the original source.
Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from providing someone else's work as the author's own work, copying or paraphrasing significant parts of other works (without attribution), to claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical behavior and unacceptable.
Multiple, duplicate or simultaneous publications
The author should not publish materials describing, in principle, the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical behavior and unacceptable.
The author should not submit an already published article for consideration in another journal, except in cases when it is presented in the form of a brief review or part of a published lecture, or abstracts, or in the form of an electronic preprint.
The publication of certain types of articles (for example, recommendations, translations) in more than one journal, in some cases and under certain conditions, is ethical. The authors and editors of the relevant journals should agree on a re-publication presenting the same information and interpretations as in the initial publication. A bibliography of the primary publication should be given in the re-publication.
Information about the authors (surname, first name, patronymic, name of an affiliated organization, organization address, e-mail address, provided by them for publication in the journal, becomes available to an indefinite circle of persons, to which the authors give written consent by the fact of the concept of the Offer when uploading an article to the online system for accepting articles on the magazine's website. The publication of this information is carried out in the interests of the authors in order to fully and correctly record publications and cite them by the relevant bibliographic organizations and to ensure the possibility of authors' contacts with the scientific community.
Personal information provided by the authors to the journal in addition to the information listed above, including additional email addresses and phone numbers, will be used exclusively for contacts with the authors in the process of preparing the article for publication. The Editorial Board undertakes not to transfer this personal information to third parties who may use it for other purposes.
Authorship of works
Authors can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the development of the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the results of the presented research. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the work should be named as co-authors.
If other persons participate in the preparation of some important aspects of the work (for example, editing, etc.), they should be listed in the "Gratitude" section.
The author must make sure that all co-authors are present in the list of authors and none of the persons who did not participate in the work is included in this list, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the latest version of the work and agree to submit it for publication.
Authors are collectively responsible for the work. Each individual author is responsible for the fact that issues related to the accuracy or professional integrity of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.
Notification of significant errors
If the author or a third party finds a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, they must immediately notify the editor-in-chief of the magazine and join forces with the editor-in-chief to withdraw the publication or make changes if the editor-in-chief considers it necessary.
Denial of publication and return of manuscript
If authors and reviewer have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to direct the article for additional review. If there are two negative reviews, the author is sent a motivated refusal to publish the work, certified by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. The decision to refuse publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board; The refusal message is sent to the author by e-mail.