Publication Ethics

The Journal applies the international standards proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Ethical Obligations of authors

1.1. Research Accuracy

An author’s central obligation is to present an accurate and complete account of the research performed, absolutely avoiding deception, including the data collected or used, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Data are defined as information collected or used in generating research conclusions. The research report and the data collected should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit a trained professional to reproduce the experimental observations.

1.2.Citation

An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, the reported research should contain all citations of work the author refers.

Reuse of the author’s own texts from earlier works (t.i. self-citation)  is possible with a reference to the original source, formalized in accordance with the established rules of citation, within reasonable limits. The verbatim repetition of large amounts of text (more than 1 paragraph) from previously published works of the authors is unacceptable.

1.3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not acceptable in the Journal. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. Authors should not engage in plagiarism – verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another’s work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication) – unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text, methodology or results without acknowledgement of the source. If one or two identical sentences previously published by an author appear in a subsequent work by the same author, this is unlikely to be regarded as duplicate publication. Material quoted verbatim from the author’s previously published work must be placed in quotation marks.

1.4. Research Originality

The Journal publishes research articles, reviews, and translations of articles previously published in other languages, including foreign journals. The manuscript and its materials for a research article or review (except for translated articles) should be original, not previously published in Russian or other languages. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author guarantees that the article is not currently submitted for publication anywhere else and will not be published in the future without appropriate references. When publishing a translation of a previously published article, the initiator of publication must notify the editorial board that the material is not original and provide written consent of the copyright holder for republication. It is considered a violation of publication ethics to submit a manuscript simultaneously to AlterEconomics and anywhere else before the author has been notified of its rejection or withdrawal from publication. Publication of a more extended study based on a previously published abstract or summary of work is possible only if the author has notified the Editorial Board of the duplicate publication and provided permission from the copyright holder to republish.

1.5. Authorship and contributorship

The author, who submits a manuscript and corresponds with the Editorial Board, is obliged to obtain permission to submit the manuscript and materials to the Editorial Board from other co-authors. He/she guarantees that all co-authors are familiarized with the last version of the manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board.

Only those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript and participated in the following stages of the work can be listed as authors:

  • idea of a  manuscript;
  • collecting, analyzing, describing and interpreting data;
  • writing one or more sections of the manuscript;
  • substantive editing of the content of the manuscript;
  • approval of the final version of the manuscript submitted for review.

An author submitting a manuscript for review sends a description of each co-author’s contribution to the manuscript as an appendix.

Individuals who had a less significant role in a manuscript may be listed in the Acknowledgment.

Submission of the manuscript to the editorial office is the responsibility of the author responsible for correspondence, who carries out all communications with the editorial office and coordinates all changes with the author’s team:

  • meeting a manuscript the journal’s requirements;
  • receiving reviewers’ comments;
  • preparing a response to reviewers;
  • making final revisions to a manuscript;
  • approval of the final version of a manuscript with the author’s team.

1.6. Conflict of interest

Authors should cite all sources of funding for the research presented in a manuscript. Any conflict of interest must be disclosed in the manuscript. In particular, the authors guarantee that:

  • the results presented in a manuscript have not been influenced by funding organizations other than those listed in the Acknowledgments section;
  • the author’s team has the right to disclose the data presented in the manuscript or has obtained the appropriate permission from the organization responsible for the safety of these data.

1.7. Images and tables presentation

Authors are required to cite the sources of all figures and tables used in the manuscript as research results or data. The use of non-original figures and tables is not allowed.

1.8. Significant errors and ethical violations in published articles

If an author discovers material errors or inaccuracies in a publication, he/she must inform the editor of AlterEconomics and work with the editor to retract (withdraw) the publication or correct the errors as soon as possible.

If the editor or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author must withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible, and the editor must publish a retraction or correction of the errors. In case of detection of violation of publication ethics by authors, the editorial board takes measures to eliminate violations up to retraction of articles.

1.9. Copyright contract

The relationship between an author and the editorial board, as well as and copyright is defined by the copyright contract. All articles are published and distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Identified violations of publication ethics by authors may entail the application of measures by the editorial board to eliminate violations up to retraction (withdrawal) of articles.

2. Ethical Obligations of Editorial board

2.1. Main tasks

Members of the Editorial Board participate in the development strategy of the Journal and support the ethical norms of interaction accepted in the scientific and publishing communities.

2.2. Publications in the Journal

In order to promote the quality work of the Journal and the growth of its prestige in the scientific community, the members of the Editorial Board have the right to publish their works (including co-authorship) in the Journal on the basis of the norms of Publication Ethics and rules adopted in the Journal.

3. Ethical Obligations and responsibility of Editor-in-Chief and his/her deputy

3.1. Decision-making

In managing the journal and making decisions about publications, the Editor-in-Chief and his/her deputy are guided by the provisions of the journal’s Charter, current legislation on defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism, and the principles of impartiality and confidentiality. They work in close cooperation with the members of the Editorial Board.

3.2. Publications in the Journal

The Editor-in-Chief and his/her deputy have the right to publish their articles (including co-authorship) in the journal based on the norms of Publication Ethics and the rules adopted by the journal. The final decision to publish their articles, taking into account the opinions of the editors and reviewers, must be supported by two members of the Editorial Board.

3.3. Investigation in case of violation of ethical principles

The Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor-in-Chief are responsible for ethical oversight, resolving conflict of interest/competing interests, intellectual property and other ethical violations in manuscripts or already published articles. They also decide whether to publicize the results of relevant investigations.

3.4.Handling complaints and appeals

The Editor-in-Chief and his/her deputy organize the work with complaints and appeals (primarily from authors) received by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Board of the journal. They are responsible for ensuring that complaints and appeals are responded to in a timely manner and that the process is transparent. Its aim is to resolve the issues raised and to reach an understanding between all stakeholders.

4. Ethical Obligations and responsibility of scientific and issuing editor

4.1 Work of the issuing editor with reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief

To make a decision on the publication of incoming manuscripts, the issuing editor (hereinafter referred to as Editor) provides double-blind reviewing by sending manuscripts to reviewers. Reviewers work only with anonymous manuscripts. The Editor also refrains from sending manuscripts to reviewers who may have a conflict of interest.

The Editor sends manuscripts received for consideration to reviewers and interacts with them. Based on the opinion of the reviewers, the Editor decides whether to publish the manuscript (without changes, with partial revisions or with substantial revisions) or not. This decision should be made within 45 days.

In case of disputable situations, the Editor has the right to invite an additional reviewer and/or act as a third reviewer and/or submit the manuscript for discussion by the Editorial Board.

The use of materials contained in the manuscript is possible only with the written consent of the authors. This information is communicated by the Editor to the reviewers, providing the necessary mediation if necessary.

The Editor informs the Editor-in-Chief about all decisions on publication/rejection of the manuscript and sends this decision to the author after its approval by the Editor-in-Chief.

In case of detection of erroneous statements or conclusions, violation of the principles of scientific ethics in published articles, the Editor is obliged to notify the Editor-in-Chief in order to make changes, retraction (withdrawal) of the publication as soon as possible and take appropriate measures.

4.2 Work of scientific editor with authors

The Editor interacts with the authors of the received manuscripts  and provides a generalized response on the publication of the manuscript or refusal of publication based on the conclusions of reviewers.

The Editor ensures confidentiality of the review process and does not work with the manuscripts of those authors in respect of whom he/she has a conflict of interest.

If the manuscript contains insulting statements about one or another author, expressions of ideological bias, or other unacceptable elements from the point of view of scientific ethics, the Editor will inform the authors and return the manuscript without review.

The Editor also has the right to refuse to publish a manuscript without the necessary review in case of poor quality of the received manuscript, inconsistency with the focus of the journal, doubts about the reproducibility of data, etc. The reasons for refusal in this case should be contained in the letter to the authors of the manuscript.

When evaluating the content of manuscripts, the Editor primarily takes into account the content, scientific significance and reliability of the manuscript, rather than the characteristics of the authors. However, when dealing with manuscripts of young authors, the Editor pays special attention to them in order to help improve the incoming materials.

The Editor uses the means available to him to resolve conflicts that arise, guided by the goals of promoting the objectivity of scientific research and the dissemination of its results.

5. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

5.1. Anonymity

Reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential. Only the issuing editor knows the names and contacts of the reviewer.

5.2 Objectivity and impartiality

The reviewer examines the submitted manuscript objectively and impartially. Personal criticism of authors, hostility, and insulting tone are unacceptable. Reviewers should avoid statements questioning the authors’ reputation and should formulate their conclusions about the manuscript under review with due respect.

5.3 Qualifications

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a proposed manuscript should notify the Editor and withdraw from the review process. If it is necessary to discuss it with third parties as part of a scientific consultation, the reviewer must notify the Editor.

5.4 Conflict of interest

The reviewer must declare any potential conflict of interest prior to the review. Conflict of interest may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious, and may include any relationship with the author that affects the outcome of the review.

5.5 Review report, comments and evaluation of corrections in the manuscript

The reviewer should provide a meaningful and comprehensive review report as well as comments that will help authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should express his/her point of view, arguing and explaining what additional research is needed to confirm the conclusions and clarify the results made in the manuscript under review. In case of decision to revise the manuscript, the reviewer is obliged to familiarize with the corrections and present his/her final decision.

5.6 Timing of reviewing

The period of manuscript review is 1 month. The reviewer should reject the review proposal if he/she cannot submit the review report within the required period.

5.7 Mandatory references and inadmissibility of forced references

The reviewer should evaluate the relevance and novelty of the sources in the lists of references used on the topic. Any statement, conclusion, result published earlier should be accompanied by a citation or bibliographic reference. The reviewer should not suggest that authors include references to the reviewer’s (or his/her collaborators’) work to increase the number of citations of the reviewer (or his/her collaborators). Possible suggestions should be based on valid academic or technological considerations.

5.8 Identification of plagiarism and duplication

The reviewer should inform the Editorial Board about cases of detection of plagiarism and duplication of the submitted manuscript with other published works or submitted manuscripts, of which he/she is aware or which are in the sphere of scientific interests of the reviewer.

5.9 Confidentiality and prohibition to use materials of the manuscript under review

The reviewer is not allowed to use information, data, theory or interpretations presented in the manuscript in his own work before the publication of the article or without the written consent of the author. The information obtained as a result of the review should remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes.

6. Ethical Obligations and responsibility of the Publisher

The Publisher follows policies and procedures that promote the ethical responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors as required by Publication Ethics.

The Publisher shall not influence the Editorial Board in the process of reviewing and publishing manuscripts.

The Publisher supports the Editorial Board of the journal in reviewing ethical claims of published material and assists in interacting with other journals and/or publishers if it facilitates the fulfillment of the duties of editors and reviewers.

The publisher promotes, to the extent possible, good research practices and best practices to improve ethical guidelines, article retraction (withdrawal) procedures, and error correction.

The publisher does not charge authors for preparation, posting and printing of materials. Publication in the journal is free of charge for authors.

7. Papers Retraction

In the case if the Editorial Team receives alert to plagiarism or duplicate publication, or if the publication contains unethical information, the Editor can consider the necessity of the paper’s retraction. The process of retraction includes:

  • An author, reader, reviewer, editor or publisher alerts the Editorial Team and Editor-in- Chief of the case of misconduct.
  • The Editorial Board considers and checks this information and make a decision to retract the paper or not. If the paper is to be retracted, the Editor notices the author mentioning the reasons and basis for the retraction.
  • Notices of retraction appear both in the print and electronic versions of the Journal.
  • The paper is retracted from all bibliographic databases, where the Journal is indexed and abstracted.