Ethic obligations of Authors of the collection of scientific works


  1. The basic duty of author consists in giving the exact description of the conducted research, and also objectively present its scientific novelty and practical meaningfulness.
  2. The authors of articles carry all responsibility for maintenance of the articles and fact of their publication.
  3. Every author is under an obligation to use reasonably and economy the volume of Collection, as it is the limited resource.
  4. Primary report about the results of a research must be complete enough and contain necessary references to the accessible information generators, that specialists in this area were able to recreate this experiment. If necessary, an author must make sufficient efforts in order to give to the other researchers the standards of unusual analytical, experimental (longattitudinal, scale) materials, which can not be got by some another method.
  5. An author must necessarily quote those publications which carried out qualificatory influence on the essence of scientific problem, and also those of them, which can provide the operative acquaintance of reader with previous works of scientists, important for understanding of this research. Except for reviews, an author must minimize quoting of works, which do not have direct attitude toward maintenance of the article. An author is under the obligation to conduct a scientifically-literary search, to find and quote original publications, in which are described the researches, closely associated with his article. He also must properly allude to the sources of fundamentally important materials, used in this work (if these materials were not got an author), on the manuscripts of
  6. In a manuscript are registered clearly any dangerous displays and risks which are related to the researches conducted by an author.
  7. An author should avoid fragmentation of reports about a research. A scientist which executes multivectorial researches of the system or group of the family systems must structure a publication in a way, that every fragment of description of the advanced study provid a fully complete report on every aspect of global analysis of a scientific problem.
  8. At presentation of manuscript to the publication an author must inform the editor of existent cognation of these materials with his articles, presented to printing by other publishing houses or accepted by them. The copies of these manuscripts appear to the editor with pointing of connections with a manuscript, presented to the publication in other journal.
  9. An author have no right to give manuscripts which describe the same results, more than in one journal as a primary publication, if it isn’t only the one, resubmitting of declined by Collection or the manuscript recalled by an author. It is possible to present the manuscript of the complete new article which extends the published thumb-nail previous sketch of the same research done before. However, at presentation of such manuscript it is necessary to inform an editor about the existence of the previous article which necessarily must be quoted by an author in this new manuscript.
  10. An author must clearly name all sources of quoted or given in the article information, except for well-known facts. Information, got by him in the private order (in the process of conversation, at correspondence or during a discussion with the third parties) from other researcher, can not be used or presented in work of this author without a permission of the research worker, from whom this information became known to him. Information, got at offering of confidential services (at criticizing of manuscripts or projects, presented for the receipt of grants), is similarly used only with permission of an author.
  11. The personal criticism of the research workers can not be considered appropriate not under any circumstances. However, in the published articles there can be criticism of materials of experimental or theoretical research in corresponding situations.
  12. The co-authors of the article must be only those persons who did a considerable scientific contribution to the given work and divide responsibility for the got results. Other, mostly, unscientific character, organizational and administrative contributions must be marked in notes to the article. Persons who died and answer the criteria of co-authorship formulated higher must be included to the number of authors, and there must be the noted a date of their death in a note. As an author or co-author it is impossible to name the fictitious names. An author who gives a manuscript to the publication bears the responsibility for including into the list of co-authors all those and only those persons who answer the requirements of authorship. In article, written by a few authors, the authors, who gives pin information to the release, documents and carries out the correspondence with editors, undertakes responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article to its publication in Collection.
  13. Authors necessarily must reveal to the editor of Collection the information about any potential conflict of interests, like corporate, consulting or financial interests of some company and others like that, on which would influence the publication of results contained in this manuscript Authors must guarantee absence of contract relations or ownership rights, which could influence on publication of information presented in a manuscript.

Ethic actions of author (-ors) at the repeated consideration of the article

and answers on the remarks of a reviewer

After the scientific retest of Your article and preparation of answer on a suggestion of reviewers, please:

    • pay attention to all remarks, given by an editor and a reviewer (-ers);
    • describe all changes which took place in maintenance of Your article in a reverse letter;
    • conduct all additional experiments or do a retest, taking into account the analytical reasoning which a reviewer recommends to carry out. If you are sure that the offered measures will not perfect Your article then thoroughly and reasonably motivate, why do you consider so;
    • in a reverse letter separately describe all points of remarks, which you agree with, and with which – no;
    • provide the tolerant scientific ground of all debatable questions;
    • clearly mark all changes in Your article, which you brought in at a revision of the article (distinguish a color);
    • give back the revised manuscript and reverse letter in terms, set by an editor (-ors);
    • be polite and show respect to the reviewers when you agree, and when not agree with their remarks. In addition, you must bring into the article necessary changes which are offered by a reviewer;
    • remember, a reviewer is an expert in psycholinguistic area. If suggestions which are brought into by an expert do not answer Your vision, then it, probably, because he did not understand the aspect of Your manuscript. It means that Your article is written in style, not quite clear for perception, thus, complicated for understanding of Your research. Hence, you must perfect the text of Your article, attain it communicative expediency, perfection and readability.

If you got a refuse

Ask you, respected authors, to avoid requirements on a standard: «Give to me a telephone (E-mail, Skype), reviewer, that I explained him everything!».

Be persistent at the attempt to publish the article. If answer scientifically reasonably and correctly on the remark of editors and reviewers in time, it is possible to attain a result in publication of Your article without any complication and tension.

Do not elect another scientific collection or journal, while it will not be find out one of such moments:

    • an editor answered that the subjects of Your article did not fully correspond to a branch type and subject of Collection;
    • an editorial college rejects publishing of manuscript without a right for its resubmitting in a release;
    • your article was rejected even after you thoroughly answered on all suggestions and analytical comments of a reviewer;
    • You obtained the information from a release about a refuse to publish Your article on the basis of reviews of two reviewers;
    • the process of the article consideration exceeds time, foreseen by regulation of Collection and editors on objective reasons can not quicken the analysis of Your manuscript. In such case, please, report a release that you take away the article, before to give it to another collection or journal.

Remember! Preparation of the article to publication is sufficiently a difficult multivectorial process, that is why you must be ready to work quietly and perceive with thanks all the remarks given to you, insistingly work on improvement of the article and to bring necessary corrections into Your manuscript, tolerantly answer on the comments of editors and reviewers. Execute nothing superfluous, answer only on those remarks and letters which are sent to you.

    • You can appeal against any editorial decision if it does not meet your scientific expectations and aspirations.


<< < June 2018 > >>
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
This Week
This Month
All days

Your IP: