The future of science in general and scholarly publishing in particular depends not only on compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also on adherence to ethical principles governing the relationships among participants in the research and publishing community, including the use of digital, automated, and intelligent tools applied in the preparation, evaluation, dissemination, and use of scholarly publications. Observance of these principles contributes to improving the quality of scholarly publications and to fostering sustainable cooperation among authors, editors, publishers, and readers.
The collective experience of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing has been consolidated into a single document — the Code of Ethics for Scholarly Publishing (hereinafter referred to as the Code), developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
The Code brings together and elaborates the general principles and rules that should guide participants in the scholarly publishing process, including authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors, and readers.
Key Terms
Publication ethics — a system of professional conduct standards governing relationships among authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers in the process of the creation, dissemination, and use of scholarly publications.
Author — an individual or a group of individuals (a team of authors) involved in the preparation of a publication presenting the results of scholarly research and bearing full responsibility for its content, including materials prepared using automated and intelligent tools.
Editor — a representative of a scholarly journal or publishing house responsible for preparing materials for publication and maintaining professional interaction with authors, reviewers, and readers.
Reviewer — an expert acting on behalf of a scholarly journal or publishing house who conducts scholarly peer review of submitted materials in order to determine their suitability for publication.
Publisher — a legal entity or an individual responsible for issuing a scholarly publication.
Reader — any individual who has accessed published scholarly materials.
Plagiarism — the intentional appropriation of authorship of another person’s scholarly or artistic work, ideas, or inventions. Plagiarism may constitute a violation of copyright and patent law and may entail legal liability.
Intelligent automated tools — software systems capable of automatically generating, transforming, analyzing, or summarizing textual, numerical, or other information and used in research and educational activities.
Principles of Professional Ethics in the Activities of Editors and Publishers
Editors and publishers bear responsibility for the publication of authors’ works, which requires adherence to the following principles:
- when making a decision on publication, the editor is guided by the reliability of the data presented and the scholarly significance of the work under consideration;
- the editor evaluates the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status, or political preferences;
- unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration must not be used for personal purposes or disclosed to third parties without the author’s written consent;
- information and ideas obtained in the course of editorial work and associated with potential advantages must be treated as strictly confidential and may not be used for personal gain;
- the editor must not allow materials to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that they contain plagiarism, falsified data, or violations of publication ethics;
- the editor may take into account the use of intelligent automated tools by authors and may request clarification in cases of doubt regarding the originality, reliability, or accuracy of the submitted materials;
- editors and publishers are obliged to consider claims concerning submitted manuscripts and published materials and to take the necessary measures to restore violated rights.
Ethical Principles in the Activities of Reviewers
A reviewer conducts scholarly evaluation of authors’ materials in an impartial and conscientious manner, which requires adherence to the following principles:
- a manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document and may not be disclosed to third parties without the permission of the editorial office;
- the reviewer must provide an objective and well-reasoned assessment of the research results; personal criticism of the author is unacceptable;
- unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes;
- the reviewer must notify the editor if they consider themselves insufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript or if a conflict of interest exists;
- when preparing a review, the reviewer evaluates the scholarly content of the work and does not base expert conclusions solely on automated software assessments or detection results.
Principles to Be Followed by Authors of Scholarly Publications
An author recognizes their responsibility for the novelty, reliability, and scholarly integrity of the submitted materials and adheres to the following principles:
- authors present reliable results of the research conducted; knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable;
- authors guarantee the originality of the submitted manuscript; borrowed fragments and ideas must be properly cited with mandatory reference to the author and the original source;
- excessive borrowing, uncited paraphrasing, and appropriation of the results of others’ research are unethical and unacceptable;
- the contribution of all individuals who have significantly influenced the course of the research must be acknowledged, with appropriate references provided;
- simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals, as well as republication of previously published materials without the consent of the editorial office is unacceptable;
- only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the research should be listed as co-authors;
- if significant errors are discovered, the author must promptly notify the editorial office;
- the use of intelligent automated tools in the preparation of a manuscript does not relieve the author of responsibility for the content, interpretation of data, validity of conclusions, or completeness of references.
Use of Intelligent Automated Tools in Scholarly Publications
The use of intelligent automated tools in the preparation, peer review, and editing of scholarly publications is permitted provided that the principles of academic integrity, transparency, and personal responsibility of all participants in the publication process are observed.
The following are considered unacceptable:
- presenting automatically generated materials as entirely original work without appropriate disclosure;
- using such tools to fabricate, distort, or substitute empirical data;
- including fabricated sources, references, scholarly facts, or research results in publications;
- substituting scholarly analysis with automated conclusions without critical evaluation.
Authors, reviewers, and editors bear personal responsibility for compliance with this Code regardless of the technical tools used.
Final Provisions
This Code applies to all materials published on the PsyJournals.ru portal and in the scholarly journals published on its platform.
Additional clarifications and methodological recommendations on publication ethics may be provided on the PsyJournals.ru portal.
The Code has been developed in accordance with international guidelines.
Committee on Publication Ethics
DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.12