ETHICAL POLICY
1. Adherence to the ethical principles
The Academic Journal “Rusistika and Komparativistika” adheres to the highest standards of publication ethics. Moreover, the journal follows the code of ethics compiled by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for editors, authors, reviewers, members of editorial boards and journal publishers. The text below reveals the expectations that editors present to the authors and that are appropriate for presenting to the editorial team.
2. The Editorial Team
As editors we are fully responsible for everything that is published in ““Rusistika and Komparativistika”. We are committed to:
Strive to cater to the needs of our readers and authors, by encouraging authors, reviewers, special correspondents, experts, readers, members of the editorial board to express openly their opinions and ideas for improving our practices.
Strive to work on the continuous improvement of the journal. We constantly monitor the developments in the field of expert review and the scientific publication sphere.
Develop and introduce into our work the methods and practices that help ensure the quality of the papers we publish. Concurrently, we regularly review, refine and improve these methods and practices.
Support initiatives aimed at developing the proficiency of researchers and increasing their competencies in the issues of publication ethics, as well as in preventing violations of the scientific standards. We constantly monitor the degree of influence of our principles and regulations on the behavior of authors and reviewers, regularly updating all regulations to encourage responsible behavior;
Оrganize our work in such a way as to form a conscientious attitude and highly moral behavior among the authors (for example, to ensure that the order of the specified authors reflects the significance of their contribution) and to prevent any violations of the norms of scientific work (for example, to exclude cases of unnamed authorship, as well as authors who have not made a significant contribution to the work);
Value and protect freedom of expression. We consider manuscripts of any origin from the widest range of authors without bias, regardless of their nationality, ethnic and racial affiliation, political and religious beliefs. Our decisions are not influenced by governmental actions. All decisions concerning the editing and publication are determined only by the internal regulations of the journal and in accordance with our principles;
Encourage and always take into account constructive and reasonable criticism of the papers published in the journal; The authors of the criticized works are offered with an opportunity to respond;
Objectively accept for consideration articles that set out negative results, i.e. results that go against the generally accepted opinion;
Maintain a conscientious attitude to scientific work;
Do not allow production needs and economic benefits to impact our actions and affect quality standards;
Be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, refutations, apologies in cases where it may be necessary;
Inform readers about the measures taken by the journal to ensure an unprejudiced attitude to the manuscripts submitted to the journal staff and the members of the editorial board;
Indicate in the published articles the dates of manuscript submitting and acceptance for publication;
Make decisions concerning the corporate style of the journal based not only on the aesthetic and personal preferences, but on relevant arguments – so as to promote clarity and quality;
Ensure that all press releases prepared and issued by the journal reflect the essence of the mentioned articles and their context;
Ensure that any claims and complaints against the journal will be handled with all seriousness and in accordance with the instructions of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In case there are complaints regarding any aspect of the journal’s activities, please contact a member of the editorial board. The names and contacts of the editorial board members are available on the journal’s website; https://philosophy.mgpu.ru
Investigate any comments and statements regarding potential violations of the norms of scientific work as follows:
First of all, we will contact those who are suspected of violating the norms of scientific work, and ask them to explain the issue. If we are not satisfied with the received response, we will contact the appropriate authorized body and ask them to investigate.
We will do everything in our power to initiate a full-fledged investigation; if such an investigation is not organized, we will continue to search for ways to resolve the issue, using all possible reasonable methods.
Maintain a system for tracking and controlling cases of conflicts of interest (concerning both ourselves and our employees, authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board).
3. To the authors
We promise our authors that:
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are reviewed by competent reviewers who are official members of the journal’s review group (including reviewers working with statistical data).
As far as possible, we take into account and respect the authors’ wishes and requests that their manuscripts should not be considered by a particular reviewer, if the reasons expressed for this are justified.
Decisions regarding the acceptance of articles and refusals are made only on the basis of the quality of the submitted manuscripts, their relevance, significance, originality, clarity of presentation, as well as the validity of the conclusions and compliance with the journal’s scientific field.
We do not review the decisions made, except in cases when there are serious problems regarding the manuscripts.
We publish complete and transparent descriptions of our review practices (double-blind peer review) and are ready to justify any deviations from the stated practices.
We guarantee that all our reviewers are given clear instructions not to disclose the comments on the manuscripts they have reviewed not to distribute them or share them with anyone except the editors. The reviewers are given an opportunity to get acquainted with the anonymous comments of other reviewers, if they review the same manuscript.
We send the reviewers’ comments to the authors in full (unless they contain offensive or slanderous remarks).
Any mistakes, inaccuracies, statements leading to misconceptions will be corrected immediately.
We are committed to support those authors whose copyrights are violated, or those who have suffered from plagiarism. We intend to contact and work together with the journals where unscrupulous authors are published with the aim of restoring justice (we will seek the cancellation of unscrupulous publications, provide apologies and refutations, remove materials from the journals’ websites that published them).
Any complaints and objections regarding the way we work with the manuscripts will be taken very seriously. Each complaint or objection will be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the instructions of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). If you have any complaints about the quality of journal’s work with your manuscript, please contact the members of the editorial board. Their names and contacts are available on the journal’s website: https://philosophy.mgpu.ru
Any concerns and comments raised regarding potential violations of the norms of scientific work, including disputes over authorship, will be investigated in accordance with the instruction approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The instruction is available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts. The decision on the manuscript will be temporarily postponed until the investigation is completed.
The procedures of actions and instructions for authors are reviewed regularly and updated if necessary (the updated versions are immediately published on the journal’s website).
In turn, we ask our authors:
To confirm that their work is original, has not been previously published or currently considered by other journals. The authors are required to make this confirmation when submitting their manuscript.
Not to send manuscripts that have been published before or contain borrowings from other works – plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not acceptable.
The Academic Journal “Rusistika and Komparativistika” applies a system that identifies borrowed text. Submitted works that have not passed the originality test by the system are rejected.
If the paper is based on a study that was funded by a certain person or body, the author must indicate in the manuscript those who allocated funds.
Declare the conflict of interest (if present).
Specify on the paper only those authors who have made a significant contribution to the research All persons indicated as authors are collectively and equally responsible for the submitted paper. The regulations concerning the issues of authorship are indicated in the section “Information for authors”.
6. Respect and maintain the privacy of certain aspects of authors’ activities. Regardless of the legal requirements of their location, authors must protect the privacy of information obtained in the course of their research and professional interactions. This means that the publication of the research results often involves obtaining a written consent of people who may recognize themselves or may be recognized in your publication. It is permissible to publish certain information without written permission, for example, if the scientific merit and public interest in the research significantly outbalance the possible negative consequences, or if written permission cannot be obtained, and the probability that individuals who participated in the research would be against the publication is low. The indication in the manuscript of the privacy measures taken with regard to the research content will be welcome. Please take into account that a consent to participate in the study or to the disclose personal data, photos, quotes in the publication are two different things.
Conform to the relevant international research regulations in your work (for example, the standards of research in the field of education by AERA and BERA, the Helsinki Declaration on Preclinical and Clinical Research).
If it is possible, indicate that the research has been previously approved by the appropriate body (for example, the research ethics committee, the institutional supervisory board) in the manuscript. If it is possible, indicate that the research has been previously approved by the appropriate body (for example, the research ethics committee, the institutional supervisory board) in the manuscript. If it is necessary, we will be able to ask the authors to present the necessary documents (permits, consents, etc.) confirming their ethical research behavior.
4. To reviewers
We promise our reviewers to:
Give a list of regulations that specify everything that is required of them in the review process, including information about maintaining their reviews’ privacy. All regulations are periodically reviewed and updated as necessary.
Periodically share with reviewers the latest research and publications in the field of peer review so that reviewers can constantly maintain the high quality of peer review.
Maintain the privacy of the reviewers’ work, do not disclose their identity to the authors.
Monitor the expert evaluation and reviewing practices used by The Academic Journal “Rusistika and Komparativistika” and strive to improve them.
Monitor the quality of the reviewers’ work to maintain high standards.
Publish gratitude to the reviewers on the journal’s website for their contribution, as well as work to ensure that the institute of reviewers fully recognizes the significance and value of the work carried out by the reviewers.
Investigate any risks associated with the violation of professional standards, in accordance with the instruction approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The instruction is available at: http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts.
In turn, we ask our reviewers to:
Notify the journal’s editors if you feel that you are not competent enough in a particular field (for example, if you are unfamiliar with certain statistical methods), or in case you have a conflict of interest (of different nature, such as personal, financial, professional, political or religious) regardless of whether you discovered this before the review or during the review process.
Do not accept manuscripts for review in case:
You understand that you cannot give a fair and unbiased review in all respects.
You were involved in pursuing or writing down the research submitted for review (even in the most insignificant way).
The submitted manuscript is very similar to your work, which is currently under development or considered for publication in another journal.
Inform the editor about current and potential conflicts of interest, contact the editor for advice if you are not sure whether you have a conflict of interest. Inform the editor if:
You work or applied for employment at the same institute as the author (one of the authors) .
In the last three years you were scientific advisor of the author engaged in joint work or were awarded joint research grants.
You have a close personal relationship with the author (with one of the authors).
Do not allow the origin of the manuscript or possible financial benefits to influence your assessment and review (ensure honest consideration of the work regardless of gender, nationality, ethnicity or race, political, religious beliefs and other characteristics of the author).
Select and recommend other reviewers to be offered certain manuscripts for review, based on their professional compliance only, excluding personal preferences, or attempts to promote a certain (positive or negative) decision with regard to a particular manuscript.
Not involve others in the review process, including students or junior colleagues, without having official permission from the journal. In the cases when additional reviewers are involved in the review process, their names are necessarily indicated in the review.
Not delay (intentionally) the review process by asking the journal to provide additional information about the author or postponing the writing and submission of your review without good grounds.
Read the manuscripts and various related materials (review instructions, ethical and regulatory requirements, additional materials, etc.) attentively, notifying the journal if something is not clear, as well as if auxiliary and other additional information is needed.
Not disclose comments and reviews, share them with anyone other than the editors who are responsible for processing the manuscript. Editors will share anonymized (devoid of personal data) versions of comments and reviews with other reviewers who have reviewed the same manuscript.
Not contact the authors without having official permission from the editors.
Not use the information obtained during the review process for your own (or someone else’s) benefit or for the purpose of harming others. It is not allowed to refuse to review manuscripts without good reasons, as well as to request and seek access to certain manuscripts without having the intention to review them.
Always remember that the editor turns to you for your special knowledge, competence, ability to judge impartially and evaluate fairly.
If you are asked to evaluate only a certain aspect or part of the manuscript, be sure to clarify this fact in your review.
Do not write reviews that give an impression that they have been written by somebody else, refrain from unjustified criticism (for example, making negative comments about scientists mentioned in the manuscript, representatives of opposite viewpoints).
Be as precise and objective as possible in your criticism, try to avoid general phrases (for example, “similar studies have already been pursued earlier”), enforce your words with appropriate references, try to review so that it is easier for the editor to make a well-founded and fair decision. Specify as precisely as possible how the manuscript can be improved, which aspects should be developed.
Remember that this manuscript is the author’s work, and do not try to rewrite it, do not impose stylistic changes on the author if they do not lead to a significant improvement in the work. However, remember that changes leading to preciseness and clarity of presentation are important.
Keep in mind that the author’s native language may differ from the language of their manuscript, show delicacy criticizing the language of the manuscript.
Pay attention to the following points in your reviews:
Ethical issues and compliance with the norms of scientific work (for example, be bound to note: if you find that the methodology does not comply with accepted ethical standards; if there is insufficient information about the consent of the study participants; if you discover that during the experiment the participants were exposed to danger and experienced a negative impact (including animals); if there are doubts about the correctness of processing and presentation of the data obtained during the study).
The degree of originality of the research and the manuscript (be attentive and try to discover mediocre works that do not carry a fundamental novelty, as well as those that contain plagiarism).
It is also important not to reveal your suspicions; do not try to investigate doubtful points personally (except in situations when the journal requests you to participate in the investigation, share additional information or advice).
Be fair-minded and evidence-based in your reviews, refrain from hostile, provocative, slanderous, transient comments on the personality. We shall quit cooperating with reviewers who write poor-quality reviews or delay the delivery of their works.
Do not suggest authors include links to their own works, to the works of other reviewers or their colleagues, just to increase the ranking and citation index. Suggestions for links can only be made on the basis of good scientific grounds.
Make sure that your comments and recommendations to the editor coincide in meaning with the review you provide the author; the comments must be formatted as reviews for the authors. Privacy remarks and observations intended only for the editor must not turn into unfounded accusations and aspersions.
Read and review the manuscripts again, if you have already reviewed them for another journal, since the manuscripts may change significantly when submitted to different journals.
Understand that expert assessment (“friendly peer review”) is an activity performed on the basis of mutual assistance, so try to do your work in full, avoiding shifting your responsibilities.
Provide the editor with complete and truthful information about yourself and your competencies.
Understand that any attempt to impersonate another person is a serious violation.
Read reviews from other reviewers to improve your understanding of a particular topic and how editorial decisions are made.
Contact the journal after submitting your review, if you find additional information that changes your initial opinion about the manuscript.
Try to respond to the requests of the journal to review the manuscripts submitted for the second round of review (i.e. those that you have previously considered).
5. To the editorial board
The membership of the editorial board is reviewed regularly so that it always includes competent scientists who are able to actively work on the development and management of the journal.
We promise our editorial board to:
Introduce to the existing work regulations and standards, to notify the editorial board’s members of any updates and changes in the development strategy and in the journal’s operating procedure. This information is sent to them regularly in accordance with the individual roles of the editorial board’s members.
Consult with the editorial board and listen to their opinions concerning journaling, inform the editorial board about any updates and changes in the development strategy and in the journal’s operating procedure, as well as about new goals and priority areas of development.
Regulate the review process in such a way that the members of the board receive an unbiased assessment when submitting their manuscripts to The Academic Journal “Rusistika and Komparativistika”
In turn, we ask our editorial board to:
Monitor the reviewers’ obligations and implement all necessary measures to ensure the high quality of the materials published in the journal, taking into account that the journal has various sections with their own particular issues and standards. The decisions on acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts shall be based on the importance (relevance) of the manuscript only, its originality, clarity of formulation and compliance with the journal’s subject.
Provide the appointed reviewers with all the necessary information and support.
Monitor the privacy of manuscripts sent to the journal, as well as protect the privacy of reviewers and their reports.
Maintain the privacy of third members working with the journal, not disclose their data.
Declare any conflicts of objectives.
Members of the editorial board who have violated the ethical standards will have to leave their position in the journal.
6. The journal’s publishing house
The Academic Journal “Rusistika and Komparativistika” is published by the State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education of the city of Moscow ” Moscow City University ” (hereinafter MCU).
The relationship between the journal and Moscow City University is primarily based on the principles of editorial independence. Editors make decisions on the publication of certain articles only on the basis of their quality and compliance with the journal’s subject without influence from the MCU. The editors often meet the MCU’s management staff, which makes it possible to settle various disagreements immediately.
7. Accusations of incorrect actions
Any accusations are attentively inspected. They can be put forward either anonymously or on behalf of a specific person. They may occur before publication in the journal or after publication. Accusations can be expressed in the form of concerns regarding violations of scientific ethics (violations committed during the research), publication ethics, as well as other incorrect actions.
If you want to express your concern, please contact the editor, a member of the Editorial Council or a member of the Editorial Board. Their names and contacts are available on the journal’s website on the “Editors” tab (https://philosophy.mgpu.ru).
If the accusations relate to authors, reviewers or members of the Editorial Council, they will be investigated by the journal’s editor-in-chief and their deputy. They will exert every possible effort to ensure that all issues are resolved fairly and as quickly as possible.
If the applicant wants to remain anonymous, their privacy will be preserved.
8. Complaints and appeals
The complaints regarding the journal, its employees, editors, the editorial board, as well as he complaints regarding MCU are usually investigated by a group of experts (the group includes at least three senior employees of the editorial board), including at least one international member of the council. If the accusations have serious grounds, according to the group’s opinion, an additional independent chairman of the investigation is appointed.
If you want to lodge a complaint, contact the editor, members of the Editorial Council or the Editorial Board. Their names and contacts are available on the journal’s website at the “Editors” tab (https://philosophy.mgpu.ru).
Employees, editors and other members of the editorial board may appeal against the decision made by the investigating group. In this case a new investigative group is formed, which includes an independent expert who has the appropriate competence to resolve the issue. The decision of the second group shall be final.