Publication Ethics

The Publication Ethics Policy of Vestnik of Rostov State University of Economics (RINH) is based on the principles of research integrity, independence of scholarly assessment, confidentiality, transparency of editorial procedures and responsibility of all participants in the publication process.

This policy takes into account the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the principles of the Declaration of Ethical Principles of Scholarly Publications adopted by the Association of Science Editors and Publishers in Russia, and applicable legislation of the Russian Federation.

This policy is applied in conjunction with the Journal’s peer-review rules, author guidelines and specific policies on research data, the use of artificial intelligence, complaints and appeals, corrections and retractions.

1. General Principles

Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their relevance to the Journal’s scope, the quality and originality of the research, the validity of the methodology, the reliability of the data and results, the quality of engagement with scholarly literature and compliance with publication ethics.

Editorial evaluation must not depend on an author’s position, institutional affiliation, academic status, citizenship or any other circumstances unrelated to the scholarly content of the manuscript and compliance with the Journal’s requirements.

Financial conditions applicable to publication in the Journal do not affect whether a manuscript is sent for peer review, the outcome of scholarly evaluation, the editorial decision or the timing of publication.

Originality screening is part of editorial control but does not replace substantive scholarly assessment of a manuscript.

Editorial and technical preparation of an accepted article must not distort the author’s position, research results or conclusions. Substantive changes to the author’s text are agreed with the author.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the content of the submitted manuscript, the reliability of data, calculations, facts and research results, the appropriateness of the methodology, and the accuracy of citations and bibliographic information.

Research results must be presented fully and accurately. The description of the data, methods and research procedures used must be sufficient to allow the validity of the reported results to be assessed. Deliberate distortion, selective presentation or concealment of data capable of leading to a misleading interpretation of the results is not permitted.

By submitting a manuscript to the Journal, the author confirms that the work is original, has not previously been published in the same or substantially overlapping form and is not simultaneously under consideration by another scholarly journal.

Simultaneous submission of the same or substantially overlapping manuscript to more than one scholarly journal is not permitted. Republication or secondary publication of previously published material is permissible only where the rights associated with the original publication are respected, the fact of prior publication is fully disclosed, and the nature and purpose of the secondary publication clearly distinguish it from unacceptable duplicate publication.

All borrowed statements, data, images, tables, ideas and other materials must be accompanied by appropriate attribution. Plagiarism, misappropriation of the results of others, distortion of the content of sources and the citation of publications that have not actually been consulted or do not exist are not permitted.

Authorship may be attributed only to persons who have made a genuine intellectual contribution to the research and preparation of the manuscript. All listed authors must have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission. Persons whose participation is insufficient to qualify for authorship must not be listed as authors.

For multi-authored articles, author contributions must be disclosed in accordance with the Journal’s requirements.

Authors must disclose sources of research funding and circumstances that may reasonably call into question the independence of the presentation or interpretation of the results. Where no conflict of interest exists, an appropriate declaration must be included in the article.

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy after submission or publication, the author must inform the Editorial Office and provide the information required for its assessment and correction.

Requirements relating to the provenance, description, verifiability and availability of research data are established by the Journal’s Research Data and Reproducibility Policy.

The conditions governing the use of artificial intelligence technologies in research, data processing and the editorial process are established by the Journal’s Artificial Intelligence Policy.

3. Responsibilities of the Editorial Office

The Editorial Office ensures compliance with the established manuscript-handling procedure, organises scholarly peer review and makes the final editorial decision.

The Journal applies double-anonymous peer review to submitted research articles. Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly competence relevant to the subject of the manuscript and the need to ensure an independent expert assessment.

When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Office takes into account information available to it concerning circumstances that may reasonably call into question the independence of the scholarly review.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s relevance to the Journal’s scope, the scholarly quality and originality of the research, the results of independent peer review, completion of required revisions and compliance with publication ethics. A positive review does not automatically guarantee acceptance, just as a recommendation for rejection is assessed by the Editorial Office in the context of the review and the manuscript as a whole.

Editorial decisions are made independently of the commercial, financial, administrative or other interests of the publisher, sponsors or third parties. Funding of the Journal or of an individual study does not confer any right to influence the scholarly evaluation of a manuscript or the decision concerning its publication.

The Editorial Office must not require authors to cite publications from the Journal, members of the Editorial Board or other authors solely for the purpose of increasing citation indicators. A recommendation to supplement the literature is appropriate only where the suggested sources are directly relevant to the research problem and necessary for the proper evaluation or interpretation of the study.

Manuscripts submitted by persons involved in the activities of the Journal or its publisher are evaluated according to the same scholarly and ethical criteria as other submissions. An author’s status must not confer any advantage in peer review or editorial decision-making.

The scholarly content of the Journal and decisions concerning publication are the responsibility of the Editorial Office. Administrative, financial, institutional or other interests must not replace scholarly criteria in the selection of publications.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, in good faith and within the limits of their professional competence.

A review must be based on the scholarly content of the manuscript. Comments should be reasoned, specific and directed towards evaluating the quality of the research. Derogatory, offensive or irrelevant comments are not permitted.

If a reviewer does not have the expertise required to evaluate a manuscript or cannot complete the review within the agreed period, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should draw the Editorial Office’s attention to substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and published work known to them, suspected inappropriate borrowing, unreliable data or other circumstances that may be relevant to the editorial decision.

A reviewer must not attempt to identify the author of an anonymised manuscript. A supposition concerning possible authorship must not in itself affect the scholarly assessment.

If, during the review process, the reviewer becomes aware of circumstances that may reasonably call into question the independence or objectivity of the review, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Office and suspend further assessment pending an editorial decision. Where an independent assessment cannot be ensured, another reviewer will be appointed.

An unpublished manuscript and the information and results contained in it must not be used by a reviewer for personal advantage or disclosed to third parties.

5. Conflicts of Interest and Independence of Decisions

A conflict of interest exists where circumstances may influence, or may reasonably be perceived as capable of influencing, the independence of scholarly assessment, peer review, interpretation of results or an editorial decision.

The existence of a potential conflict of interest is not in itself a breach of publication ethics and does not automatically constitute grounds for refusing to consider or publish a manuscript. What is essential is the disclosure of relevant circumstances and the prevention of their influence on scholarly assessment and editorial decision-making.

Authors must disclose conflicts of interest relevant to the study and sources of funding in accordance with the Journal’s requirements.

The Editorial Office uses the information available to it to prevent conflicts of interest from affecting the selection of reviewers, scholarly evaluation and editorial decisions.

A person whose circumstances do not allow an independent substantive scholarly assessment or final editorial decision concerning a particular manuscript must not participate in that part of the procedure. Administrative, organisational and technical actions that do not involve scholarly assessment and do not determine the publication decision may continue, provided that the uniform review procedure and confidentiality requirements are observed.

Under double-anonymous peer review, reviewers are not expected to establish the identity of the author. The obligation to inform the Editorial Office arises where circumstances capable of affecting the independence of the review become known to the reviewer during the evaluation of the manuscript.

6. Confidentiality

A manuscript is confidential material until publication.

Information concerning the manuscript, its status in the editorial process, reviewers’ comments and editorial correspondence is available only to persons whose participation is necessary for the editorial procedure.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, findings, methodological approaches or other information contained in a manuscript for their own benefit or disclose such information to third parties.

The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors under double-anonymous peer review. Information that could identify the author is not included in materials provided to reviewers.

Unpublished manuscripts, manuscript fragments, peer reviews and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded or transmitted to external generative artificial intelligence systems, in accordance with the Journal’s applicable policy.

7. Research Integrity and Unacceptable Practices

The Journal does not tolerate fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, inappropriate use of the materials or results of others, fictitious or honorary authorship, omission of persons who legitimately qualify for authorship, duplicate or redundant publication without appropriate disclosure, fictitious bibliographic references, citation manipulation or other practices capable of distorting the scholarly record.

Presenting results, data, quotations or sources as genuine where their provenance and reliability cannot be substantiated is regarded as a breach of research integrity.

The Editorial Office may request explanations, source data, calculation materials, confirmation of bibliographic information or other materials directly necessary to investigate a concern.

A report of a possible breach does not constitute a presumption of misconduct by an author, reviewer or other participant in the publication process. The Editorial Office assesses the information provided and, where necessary, requests explanations and supporting materials before reaching a decision.

Any action taken will be proportionate to the nature and significance of the identified issue and its potential effect on the reliability of the scholarly publication.

8. Ethical Requirements for Research

Research involving human participants, personal or other legally protected data, surveys, interviews, experiments or confidential information must be conducted in accordance with applicable legal and ethical requirements.

Where the nature of the research requires informed consent, permission to use data or approval from an authorised ethics body, authors must have the appropriate basis and be prepared to provide confirmation to the Editorial Office upon request.

Publication must not result in the unlawful disclosure of personal, confidential or other information whose access is restricted by law, the conditions under which the information was obtained or the rights of third parties.

9. Correction of the Scholarly Record

The Editorial Office considers information concerning possible errors or ethical breaches whether it is received before or after publication.

If an error, unreliable information or a breach is identified after publication, the Editorial Office assesses its effect on the content and conclusions of the article. Depending on the nature of the issue, a correction or editorial notice may be published, or the article may be retracted.

Retraction is not intended as a punishment of the author. Its primary purpose is to preserve the reliability of the scholarly record and to inform readers where the results or provenance of a publication do not allow it to be regarded as reliable.

The procedure for corrections and retractions is set out in the Journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy.

10. Complaints, Appeals and Reports of Ethical Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers and other interested parties may contact the Editorial Office regarding publication ethics, editorial procedures, peer review or published materials.

Complaints are considered on their merits and on the basis of the information provided. A person whose action or decision is the subject of a complaint must not be solely responsible for considering that complaint.

An author’s disagreement with the scholarly assessment of a manuscript does not in itself demonstrate a breach of editorial procedure. An appeal should provide reasoned grounds identifying the circumstances that, in the applicant’s view, require reconsideration.

The procedure for submitting and considering complaints and appeals is established by the Journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

11. Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This policy establishes the general principles of publication ethics. Specific matters are governed by the relevant Journal policies and guidelines:

• Peer Review Rules;
• Manuscript Submission and Review Procedure;
• Research Data and Reproducibility;
• Use of Artificial Intelligence;
• Complaints and Appeals;
• Corrections and Retractions.

Where a situation is not directly governed by the Journal’s published policies, the Editorial Office considers it in accordance with the principles of research integrity, this Publication Ethics Policy, COPE guidance and applicable legislation of the Russian Federation.

Principal international guidance: COPE Core Practices; ICMJE Recommendations.