Herald of Civil Procedure
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

Editorial office of the journal “Herald of civil procedure” is guided by the following rules of ethics of scientific publications in its operation. 

Principles of professional ethics in the work of editor and publisher 

In his operation editor is responsible for promulgation of author’s works, which makes it necessary to be guided by the following fundamental principles. 

• While making a decision about the publication the editor of the scientific journal is guided by the authenticity of the presented information and the scientific value of the reviewed work. 

• Editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the work regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, place of origin, citizenship, social status or political views of an author. At the same time, materials published in the journal reflect the personal view of the authors, which can be different from the point of view of the editorial office. 

• Unpublished materials, presented to be reviewed, should not be used for personal means or be transferred to the third parties without the written consent of an author. Information or ideas, acquired during the process of editing and connected to the possible advantages, should remain confidential, and should not be used with an aim of acquiring private benefits. 

• Editor should not accept the work to be published if he has sufficient grounds to suppose it to be plagiarism. 

• Editor together with the publisher should not leave unanswered any complaint connected to the reviewed and published works, and in any case of conflict all the necessary measures should be taken for restoration of violated rights. 

• Publisher must be sure that the potential revenue from advertising or making reprints did not affect Editor’s decision. 

• Publisher should promote the due practice of conducting research and implement scientific standards in order to develop of ethical recommendations, procedures of exclusion and correction of mistakes. 

• Editor and publisher aim to organize the process of feedback with the readers, reviewers and members of editorial board on the ways of development of the journal’s operation, support the initiatives aimed at limiting dishonesty at conduction of research and preparation of publications, try to find necessary resources and assistance from experts, provide effective choice of reviewers for the articles, respect the wishes of authors on whether a specified person should not review their work if such wish is justified and feasible, when possible to provide access to publications related to the reviewed article to the reviewers, develop and support database of available reviewers and update it based on analysis of reviewers’ work and use variety of sources for search for new reviewers, be open for researches that contradict to former works published in the journal. 

• New editors should not void decisions on publications of articles, made by previous editors, unless in case of their publishing serious problems appear. 

Ethical principles in reviewer’s operation 

Reviewer handles scientific expertise of author’s materials, therefore his actions should be of unbiased character, which means fulfilling following principles. 

• Article to be reviewed should be viewed as a confidential document that should not be sent for acquaintance or discussion for the third parties that have no competence for that from the editorial office. 

• Reviewer should give objective and reasonable evaluation of the viewed research results, should not let the origin of the work, ethnicity, religious beliefs, political or other views of the authors, or commercial reasons affect the content of the review. Should write the opinion objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inciting statements and from slanderous or humiliating commentaries. Personal critique of an author is not accepted. 

• Unpublished data received from the reviewed works should not the used by the reviewer in his personal interest. 

• Reviewer has to present precise and true information about his personal and professional knowledge and experience. 

• Reviewer who, according to his opinion doesn’t have enough qualification for the evaluation of the work, or cannot be objective, for example in case of conflict with the author or the organization, should tell about that to the editor with a request to exclude him from the process of review of a given article. 

• Reviewer should periodically analyse his approach of the review for seeking for possible developments. 

• Reviewer should follow the journal policy in situations which in his opinion may hinder objective review. 

• Reviewer should carefully read the reviewed article, support materials (e.g. manuals for the reviewer, needed ethical guidelines and policy principles, files with additional information) and journal manuals, should ask the journal office in case of any questions and requesting lacking information needed for creation of the qualitative review. 

• Reviewer should not involve anyone to make a review, including his assistants, unless there is a permit from the journal office; names of all persons who helped reviewers in writing reviews should be added to the text, so their participation is registered in the journal and the journal could express its thank to them. 

• Reviewer should report to the journal office if there are consequences that stop him from finishing the opinion in a due time, and should tell a precise time that will be needed for finishing the opinion unless the journal choses another reviewer. 

• In case of “double blind” review, if the reviewer can guess who the authors are and that information can cause conflict of interests, he should inform the journal team. 

Principles to be followed by the author of scientific publications 

Author (or a group of authors) understands that is has the initial responsibility for the novelty and authenticity of his scientific research results, which implies being guided by the following principles. 

• Authors of the article should present reliable results of the conducted research. Any statements known to be erroneous, fake or false are unacceptable.  

• Authors should guarantee that the results of the research stated in the given article are absolutely authentic, that the research is conducted according to ethical and legal norms. Any borrowed fragments or statements should be written with mandatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowings and plagiarism in any form , including unmarked quotations, rephrasing or acquisition of rights for other persons’ research results are unethical and unacceptable.  

• It’s necessary to recognize the impact of all persons who in this or that way affected the research, in particular the article should contain references to the works that were meaningful during the research. 

• Authors should not present to the journal an article that was already sent to another journal and is reviewed there, and also an article already published in another journal. Publication of articles of some kind (e.g. translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases athical when following certain conditions. Authors and editors of the concerned journals should agree on the secondary publication that presents the same data and interpretation as in the originally published article. 

• As co-authors of the article should be called all people who made a sufficient contribution in the conducted research. Among the co-authors is unacceptable to mention persons who did not take part in the research. Authors should be listed in a sequence set by a “unilateral decision of authors”. Persons who contributed to the research, but are not authors of the article should be mentioned in the article separately. 

• Authors can be requested to send unedited date related to the article for the review by the editors. Authors should be ready to present open access to such information (according to ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if it is practicable, and in any case should be ready to save this data during an adequate period of time after the publication. 

• If author find serious mistakes or inaccuracies in the article during the period of its review or after its publication, he should report to the journal team as soon as possible. 

• All authors should reveal financial or other existing conflicts of interest that can be supposed to have affected the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflict of interests that are to be revealed include employment, consultations, possession of joint-stock property, receiving royalties, execution of an examination, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interests should be revealed as soon as possible. 

• Authors retain copyright for their works and grant journal the right of the first publication of the work that is automatically licenced 6 months later on the conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, that helps other persons to spread this work with obligatory preservation of references to the authors of the original work and the original publication in this journal. 

• Authors have a right to spread their work in the Internet (e.g. in the University’s repository or personal website) after its publication in this journal, because it may lead to the productive discussion and a bigger number of references to the given work. 

• All authors knowing or supposing that the presented article is a part of a bigger research should reveal this information. 

The journal reserves the right to reject any article given for publication that doesn’t correspond to the mentioned above principles. 

This passage is prepared based on the materials of Elsevier Publishing and the materials of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)