Publishing Ethics

The work of editorial board of journal “Filosofija nauki i tehniki / Philosophy of Science and Technology” is conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Guidance on the ethics of scientific publications of Elsevier. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for all participants of the publication process.

“Filosofija nauki i tehniki / Philosophy of Science and Technology” is open access journal – all issues of the journal are available in electronic form for free on the journal's website. A manuscript processing and publishing materials in the journal are completely free of charge.

The author of a received manuscript has all the rights on its content. No one who has access to the content of a received manuscript can use it for personal goals.

Authors:

1.1. Shall ensure that their articles are not pending in the editorial office of another journal and that they have not been published before.

1.2. Shall be responsible for the content of the article. Articles must be original scientific works. In the case of borrowing materials from other researchers, a proper correct reference must be made, drawn up in accordance with the rules for arranging journal articles. Reviews and overviews should also be accurate and objective, and works expressing the author's personal private opinion should be explicitly noted as such.

1.3. Shall be responsible for the presence of intentional or unintentional plagiarism. Unauthorized borrowing and reproduction of any elements of the article (text, graphics, primary data etc.) are absolutely unacceptable. Borrowed elements reproduced with the consent of the copyright holder must be presented in the right form and accompanied by an appropriate reference.

1.4. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the Express written permission of the author of the work that was the subject of this activity.

1.5. Shall be responsible for indicating the sources of financial support for the project, the results of which are presented in their article, and for indicating the persons who have contributed to the research (including co-authors).

1.6. When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, the author is obliged to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editors in refuting or correcting the paper. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains a significant error, the author must promptly refute or correct the paper. 

Editors:

2.1. Shall be responsible for making decisions on the proposed articles. The basis for the decision of the editorial board of the journal on accepting an article for publication or refusing to publish is exclusively the scientific value of the article, its significance for the given branch of science and the quality of the presentation of the material, as well as by the current legislation regarding libel, copyright infringement or plagiarism.

 2.2. Shall be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of information about articles submitted for editing and their authors. Access to this information is provided only to a narrow circle of persons who are directly related to the article and the process of its preparation for publication. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.

2.3. Shall undertake to agree the final version of the article with the author before sending the material to print.

2.4. Shall undertake to evaluate scholarly articles solely on their intellectual level and scientific novelty, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views and other personal characteristics of the authors.

2.5. Shall guarantee the transfer of authors’articles  for  review on an anonymous basis.

2.6. An editor who has obtained conclusive evidence that the content or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should contact the publisher to arrange for the prompt publication of amendments, retractions or other communication relevant to the situation.

2.7. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. ask a co-editor, assistant editor, or other member of the editorial Board to replace them in the review and review process) from reviewing manuscripts if there is a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) organizations associated with the papers.

2.8. Editors should take reasonably responsive measures upon recieving complaints of ethical nature in relation to the submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures usually involve contact with the author of the paper and responsible consideration of the complaint on the merits, but may also involve further interaction with relevant organizations and research groups. 

Reviewers:

3.1.  Shall undertake to perform the procedure of anonymous ("double blind") review.

3.2.  Shall undertake not to disclose to outsiders information about the articles submitted for review.

3.3.  Shall undertake to respect copyright and under no circumstances use original materials or fragments presented in their research or for personal purposes.

3.4.  Shall undertake to conduct a scientific examination of the articles within the deadlines set by the editorial board of the journal. If reviewing is not possible within the specified time frame or the reviewer feels insufficiently qualified to evaluate the research presented in the paper, the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial staff thereof.

3.5.  Shall undertake to carry out reviews on a voluntary basis.

3.6. Shall undertake to abide by the requirements of maximum objectivity. The only criterion in assessing the article is its scientific significance. Any decisions based on any personal preferences of the reviewer are not allowed. Reviews should be made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supporting them with arguments. In the event of the presence or occurrence of a conflict of interest in any form between the reviewer and the author, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editorial staff thereof and refrain from reviewing.

3.7. Reviewers should identify works that are relevant to the paper, which were not referred to by the authors. Every allegation that an observation, conclusion or argument has been made previously must be supported by a reference. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities and intersections between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he or she is personally aware. 

Conflict of interest: 

All interested parties should avoid the occurrence of conflicts of interest in any form at all stages of the process of the article’s passing into print. In the event of a conflict of interest in any form, the person who first discovered such a conflict must immediately notify the editorial staff thereof. The same applies to any violation of generally accepted ethical norms and rules.

The Editorial Team organizes the reviewing process in a way that excludes any conflict of interest, which can arise from personal preferences, competition, partnership or any other relations between the author and any companies, organizations or individuals involved in the reviewing process.

In the event that the Editorial Team are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct they will deal with it appropriately, take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.

The Editorial Team commits to publish clarifications, retractions and apologies about conflict situations, as well as corrections of the material when needed.

Retraction of papers: 

If the editorial Board recieves information that an paper published in the journal “Ethical thought” contains plagiarism, or the publication of the submitted data is contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, the question of retraction (withdrawal) of the paper is raised. The retraction process is organized as follows:

The author, reader, reviewer, editor or publisher shall notify the editorial office of the violation in writing.

The editorial Board considers the appeal and makes a decision on retraction or refusal of the paper. If a decision on retraction is made, the editorial Board sends a letter to the author with a description of the detected violations.

The printed and electronic versions of the journal publish a message about the retraction of the paper with the explanation of the reasons.

The editors withdraw the paper from all citation databases and electronic resources, which include the journal.