The editorial board of the journal «Cultural Studies Russian South» follows the Copyright Law of the Russian Federation (Chapter 70), international standards of publication ethics elaborated by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
To avoid unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, misrepresentation, etc.), with a view to ensure the high quality of scientific publications, recognizeauthor’s scientific results, each member of the editorial board, an author, a reviewer, a publisher must comply with ethical standards, norms and rules and take all reasonable measures to prevent their violations. Compliance with the rules of scientific publicationsethics by all participants of this process ensures the authors’ rights to intellectual property, qualityimprovementof the publication and exclusion of misuse of copyrighted materials.
1.Principles of professional ethics in the activity of the editor-in-chief (publisher).
In his activity, the editor-in-chief (publisher) is responsible for the publication of the author’s works. Below please find the list of ethical standards that should be followed by editor-in-chief.
1.1. To promote the fulfillment of ethical duties by the editorial board, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.
1.2. To support the editorial board of the journal in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and to help the interaction with other journals and/or publishers, if it contributes to the fulfillment of the editors duties.
1.3. To ensure the confidentiality of publications received from authors and any information before it is published.
1.4. To realize that the activity of the journal is not a commercial project and it doesn’t aim at profit.
1.5. To be always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, refutations and apologies when it’s necessary.
1.6. To provide the editorial board of the journal the possibility of the removing publications, containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.
1.7. The editor-in-chief (publisher) has the right to reject the manuscript or to require the author to revise it, if it is framed with violations of the rules adopted in the journal «Cultural Studies South of Russia».
1.8. The article, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyrights are reserved to authors.
1.9. To publish information about the financial support of the study, if the author provides the information in the article.
1.10. The editor-in-chief should take commensurate steps to remove significant, grammatical, stylistic and other errors found in the paper.
1.11. To agree with the author the editorial correction introduced in the article.
1.12. Do not delay the release of the journal.
2. Ethical principles for authors.
An author (or a group of authors) transmitting papers to the scientific journal «Cultural Studies Russian South» should realize the responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the scientific research results.So the author should complythe following principles:
2.1. The author of the article should provide reliable results of the conducted studies. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
2.2. The author has to ensure that the results of the study, described in the manuscript, are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be used with an indication of the author and the source. Excessive borrowings, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformulated quotes, rephrasing or assigning rights to the results of other people's research, are unethical and unacceptable. The existence of a loan without reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism.
2.3. The author must give in the paper only genuine facts and information; give sufficient information to check and to repeat experiments by other researchers; do not use information obtained in private, without written permission; do not allow fabrication and falsification of data.
2.4. Avoid duplication of publications. If some elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author must refer to earlier paper and indicate the differences between the new work and the previous one.
2.5. The author should not provide a journal with a paperthat is sent to another journal and is pending, as well as an article already published in another journal.
2.6. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all people who somehow influenced the course of the study; in particular, the article should contain references to the work that was important in the study.
2.7. The author should comply with ethical requirements, speaking with criticism or comments regarding researches of third parties.
2.8. All people who have made a significant contribution to the study should be indicated as the co-authors of the article. It is inadmissible to indicate people who did not participate in the study among co-authors.
2.9. The author should respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and eliminate the shortcomings or explain them reasonably.
2.10. The author must submit and issue the manuscript in accordance with the rules adopted in the journal.
2.11. If the author has found significant errors or inaccuracies in the article during the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must immediately notify the editor-in-chief about them.
2.12. The author must provide the editorial board or the editor-in-chief with the proof of the correctness of the original article or correct material errors if the editor-in-chief (publisher) or the editorial board has learned about them from third parties.
3. Ethical principles of the reviewer.
The reviewer carries out a scientific expertise of copyright materials.Below please find the list of ethical standards that should be followed by reviewer.
3.1. The reviewing manuscript is a confidential document that cannot be passed on for review or discussion to third parties without authorization from the editor-in-chief.
3.2. The reviewer should treata manuscript as the author’s intellectual property and its information cannot be disclosed. The reviewer’s statement concerning falsification or unreliability of the materials expounded in the article could be the reason of the confidentiality breaking.
3.3. The reviewer should inform the editor-in-chief on partial similarity of the estimated manuscript to some other papers, as well as on the facts of the references absence to the provisions, conclusions or arguments previously published in other papers of this or other authors.
3.4. The reviewer hastoobjectively and argumentatively assessthe results of the research and clearly grounded recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
3.5. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective, aimed at raising the scientific level of the article.
3.6. The reviewershouldadjudicate the papers based on specific facts and give evidence of his decisions.
3.7. The reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.
3.8. It is also prohibited to use the content of the work before its publication (for reviewer’s own needs).
3.9. A reviewer who does not possess, in his opinion, sufficient qualification for the evaluation of the manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interests with the author or organization, should makethe editor-in-chief a request for the suspension from the review process of this manuscript.
3.10. The feedback on the article is confidential. Name of the reviewer is the editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief of the journal. This information was not disclosed.
4. Conflict of interests.
In order to avoid cases of violation of the publication ethics, it is necessary to exclude the conflict of interests of all parties participating in the process of publishing the paper. The conflict of interests arises, if the author, reviewer or member of the editorial board has financial, scientific or personal relationships that may affect their actions.
In order to prevent the conflict of interests and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal, each of the parties has the following responsibilities.
- to transmit a manuscript for reviewing to other referee, if the originally appointed referee has a conflict of interests with the author of the manuscript;
- torequest information from all participants of the manuscript publishing process on the possibility of a conflict of interests;
- to decide on the publication of the information mentioned in the author’s letter concerning the conflict of scientific and/or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may influence the evaluation of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;
- to ensure theamendments publication, if the information on a conflict of interests was obtained after the article publication.
The author is obliged:
- toindicate the place of work and the source of funding for the study.
The reviewer is obliged:
- toinform the editor-in-chief about the existence of a conflict of interests (dual obligations, competing interests) and to refuse themanuscript examination.