PROCEEDINGS OF THE RUSSIAN HIGHER SCHOOL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

1.1

1

The chief editor of the «Proceedings of the RHSAS» is responsible for making the decision on which of the received by the editorial board articles should be published. This decision must always be taken based on the verification of the article as well as on the article's importance for readers. The chief editor should follow methodical recommendations developed by the editorial board members and such legal requirements as nonadmission of calumny, copyright and plagiarism. When making final decision on publishing the chief editor can consult with the editorial board members or peer reviewers. 

1.2

The chief editor and members of the «Proceedings of the RHSAS» journal editorial board  evaluate the articles presented according to their intellectual contentsregardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship and political views of authors. 

1.3

The chief editor of the  «Proceedings of the RHSAS» journal takes into consideration papers not published elsewhere before that represent the results of original scientific research corresponding to scientific topics and areas of the journal. In the case the previously published article is found which is similar to a considerable extent with the article being under consideration for publishing the chief editor of the  «Proceedings of the RHSAS» journal reserves to oneself the right to refuse publishing the article.

1.4

The chief editor and the editorial board members should not disclose the information on the submitted manuscript to anyone  but the authors, peer reviewers, potential reviewers, consultants of the editorial board.

1.5

The information contained in the submitted article should not be used in any form in the personal works of the chief editor and the editorial board members without written permission of the author. The confidential information or ideas revealed during peer reviewing procedure should be kept in a secret and should not be used for the personal benefit.

1.6

The chief editor of the «Proceedings of the RHSAS» journal should ask the journal's authors to provide the information on the competitive interests and should publish corrections if the conflict of interests was disclosed after publishing. If necessary other appropriate action can be undertaken such as refutation publishing.

1.7

The chief editor should not compel citing of the published in the «Proceedings of the RHSAS» articles from the journal's authors in order to artificially increase the journal's scientific performance indices.

1.80

The chief editor of the «Proceedings of the RHSAS» journal should reasonably quickly respond and treat the ethical nature complaints related to the submitted manuscript and published article.

2.1

1 

The authors are responsible for the contents of their articles. In their articles representing the results of the original scientific research the authors should present real objective facts and carefully examined information. Inadmissible are fraudulent and deliberately inaccurate statements that are examples of unethical conduct. Borrowing information from other authors should be acknowledged by properly made reference. Borrowing without the reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism. The results discussed in the article should comply with the criterion of reproducibility by other researchers. All the methods of data processing and the logic of the results interpretation should be absolutely clear.

2.2

When the work is related to chemicals, dangerous procedures or equipment use of which can lead to inadmissible risks the author should clearly state about it in his/her manuscript. When the work is related to using animals or people the author should state in the manusript that all procedures were made in full accordance with existing legislation and job instructions and that all the procedures were approved by an appropriate committee of the institution where the procedures toor place. The authors should separately state in the manuscript that they obtained permission for experimenting with people. Human right for personal life inviolability should also be considered. 

2.3

The authors are responsible for intentional or unintentional plagiarism. Unauthorized borrowing and representation of any part of a published articles (text, graphs, raw data, e.t.c.) are absolutely inadmissible. The borrowed elements represented with the copyright owner's consent should be represented correctly and aknowledged by appropriate reference. Plagiarism in all forms is manifestation of unethical conduct and is inadmissible. 

2.4

The information obtained privately, i.e. by personal correspondence, conversation or discussion with third parties, obtained during offering confidential services, can be used only after the written permission of the information owner is obtained.

2.5

By sending the article to the editorial board the authors confirm that the article is not being considered for publishing in any other journal and has not been published before. Submitting the same manuscripts concurrently to more than one journal is manifestation of unethical conduct in publishing. 

2.6

The authorship should be limited to the persons  who made valuable contribution to concept, plan, fulfilment and interpretation of research. All persons made considerable contribution should be indicated as coauthors. If some person made a contribution to the research he/she should be acknowledged or even included in the list of coauthors. The author conducting correspondence with the editorial board should be responsible for including all other coauthors to the list of coauthors as well as for their reading and approvement of the final version of the article and their permission for the article being published.

2.7

When the author finds a substantial mistake or inaccuracy in his/her already published paper he/she should immediately let the editorial board or the publisher know and collaborate with the editor to retract or to make corrections to the article. When the chief editor gets to know from the third party that the published paper has substantial mistake and informs the author about it then the author should as soon as possible send corrections or prove validity of his/her results in the paper.

2.80

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantial conflict of interests that may be considered as affecting the results of examination of their manuscript. The authors are responsible for indicating sources of project financial support and the persons assisting the research results of which are supposed to be published in the article submitted.

2.9

The authors may be asked to present for the editorial examination raw data concerned with their article and the authors should be ready to provide public access to these data (in accordance with statement of Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM)) if it is possible. These data should be kept for 1 year after the date of publishing.

2.10

The copyright belongs to authors and the authors are responsible for reliability of the information presented.

3.10

1 

The reviewers should be extremely objective while examining articles. The criteria of an article value are novelty, timeliness and scientific importance. The reviewers are entitled to estimate the level, quality, presentation clarity of the article and its contents conformity to the title. Decisions made on the basis of individual reviewer's preferences are not admitted. When there is or emerges a conflict of interests in any form between the reviewer and the author the reviewer should immediately notify the journal's editorial board and refuse to make reviewers comments for the article.

3.2

The reviewers should conduct scientific examination of the articles in sheduled time prescribed by the journal's editorial board (one month started from the date the reviewer received the article). If the reviewer may not have examined the article in prescribed time he/she should immediately inform the editorial board.

3.3

The reviewers should not disclose information on the articles being examined to unauthorized persons. Each received for examination manuscript should be considered as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown or discussed with other persons exept for authorized by the editor.

3.4

Before the article is published the reviewers in no case are allowed to use the information they have access to owing to examining the articles in their own research or for other personal use.

3.5

The confidential information or ideas revealed during peer reviewing procedure should be kept in a secret and should not be used for the personal benefit.

3.6

The reviewer should refuse from reviewing when there exists interests conflict arising from competition, collaboration or other relations with some of the authors, companies or institutions concerned with the article.

3.7

Reviewing articles in «Proceedings of the RHSAS» is anonimous. The authors are not informed who reviewed their articles. However, the reviewer's name can be reported to the author according to the wish and written permission of the reviewer.

3.8

If authors did not make references to some important published articles on the topic the reviewer should point it out.

3.9

Any statement that some data, conclusion or reason have already been reported in scientific press should be proved by the appropriate reference. The reviewer should notify the chief editor when the being reviewed manuscript seems to him considerably or partialy the same  with the other already published article the reviewer is familiar with.

4.10

1

To avoid violation of publishing ethics conflicts of interests of all parties participating in publishing the manuscript should be excluded. Conflict of interests arises when the author, the reviewer or the editorial board member have financial, scientific or personal relations that may affect their activities.

4.2

In order to prevent conflicts of interests and according to accepted ethic standards of the journal the editor ought to:

• transfer the manuscript for reviewing to another reviewer if there is conflict of interests between the first assigned reviewer and the author of the manuscript;
• request that all participants of publishing process notify the editor about the possibility of competitive interests;
• make a decision on publishing information presented in the author's letter and concerned with a conflict of scientific and/or financial interests when the information is not confidential and can affect the estimation of the published article by readers or scientific community;
• ensure that corrections be published if the information about conflict of interests were obtained after the article had been published.

4.3

In order to prevent conflicts of interests and according to accepted ethic standards of the journal the author ought to:

• enumerate in the accompanying letter known and potential reasons for conflict of interests;
• indicate his/her job position, place of employment and source of research financing;
• if there is no conflict of interests clearly state it in the accompanying letter.

4.4

• inform the chief editor about existing conflicts of interests (dual obligations, competitive interests) and refuse from reviewing of the manuscript.