DECLARATION ON PUBLICATION ETHICS
The Editorial Board of the scientific and practical journal «Agrarian Bulletin of the North Caucasus» adheres to the principles of publication ethics adopted by the international community, reflected, in particular, in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the code of ethics of scientific publications, and also takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers.
To avoid unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presenting false information, etc.), in order to ensure high quality scientific publications, public acceptance of the obtained research results, every member of the Editorial Board, Author, Reviewer, Publisher, and institutions involved in the publishing process, are required to comply with ethical standards, rules and regulations and to take all reasonable steps to prevent violations. Compliance with the rules of publication ethics by all participants in this process helps to ensure the rights of authors to intellectual property, improve the quality of the publication and eliminate the possibility of misuse of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.
In its activities, the Publisher is responsible for the publication of copyright works, which entails the need to follow the following fundamental principles and procedures:
2.1. To facilitate the performance of ethical duties by the Editorial Council, Editorial Board, Reviewers and Authors in accordance with these requirements.
2.2. Provide support to the Editorial Board in addressing ethical concerns about published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or publishers, if this contributes to the performance of the duties of editors.
2.3. To ensure confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any information until the moment of its publication.
2.4. Be aware that the activity of the Journal is not a commercial project and does not carry a profit-making purpose.
2.5. Be always ready to post corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
2.6. Provide the Editorial Board with the possibility to exclude publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.
2.7. The Publishing (Editor) has the right to reject the manuscript or to demand from the author of its completion if it is issued with violations of the Rules accepted in this Journal and agreed with the Publishing.
2.8. The article, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyright is reserved for the authors.
2.9. Post information about financial support of the research, if the author provides such information to the article.
2.10. In case of detection of substantive, grammatical, stylistic and other errors, the Editorial Board undertakes to take all measures to eliminate them.
2.11. To coordinate with the Author the editorial proofreading made in the article.
2.12. Do not delay the release of the Journal.
which should guide the author of a scientific publication
Author (or authors) when submitting materials in the scientific and practical journal «Agrarian Bulletin of the North Caucasus» aware that he bears primary responsibility for novelty and validity of scientific research results, which implies respect for the following principles:
3.1. Authors of the article should provide reliable results of the research. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
3.2. Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements should be issued with obligatory indication of the author and the primary source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformed quotations, paraphrasing or assignment of rights to the results of other people's research, is unethical and unacceptable. Presence of borrowing without reference will be considered by the Editorial Board as plagiarism.
3.3. Authors should present only authentic facts and information in the manuscript; provide sufficient information for verification and repetition of experiments by other researchers; do not use information obtained in private, without open written permission; do not allow fabrication and falsification of data.
3.4. To avoid duplication of publications, the author must send any previously unpublished manuscripts. If certain elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author must refer to an earlier work and indicate the differences between the new work and the previous one.
3.5. Authors should not submit to the Journal a manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal.
3.6. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who somehow influenced the course of the study, in particular, the article should contain references to works that were important in the study.
3.7. Authors must follow the ethical standards, acting with criticism or comments concerning the research of third parties.
3.8. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the study should be listed as co-authors of the article. Among the co-authors it is unacceptable to indicate persons who did not participate in the study.
3.9. Authors should respect the work of the Editorial Board and reviewers and eliminate these shortcomings or explain them in a reasoned manner.
4. Ethical principles in the activity of the Reviewer
5. Principles of professional ethics
in the activities of the Chief editor.
6. Guidelines for the release of articles
7. Conflict of interest
8. Violations
3.10. Authors must submit and submit manuscripts in accordance with the rules of the Journal.
3.11. If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must immediately notify the editorial Board of the Journal.
3.12. Authors must provide the Editorial Board or publisher with proof of the correctness of the original article or correct significant errors, if the editorial Board or publisher became aware of them from third parties.
The Reviewer carries out scientific examination of the author's materials, as a result of which his actions must be impartial, consisting in the implementation of the following principles:
4.1. Manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document that can not be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who do not have the authority of the Editorial Board.
4.2. Reviewers are required to know that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a reviewer's statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials contained in the article.
4.3. Reviewer should pay attention to the Editor's substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscripts evaluated with any other work, as well as the lack of references to principles, conclusions, or arguments previously published in other works or other authors.
4.4. Reviewer should note the relevant published works that are not cited (in the article).
4.5. Reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated results of the study and clearly substantiated recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
4.6. Comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.
4.7. Reviewer must make decisions based on specific facts and provide evidence of his decision.
4.8. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.
4.9. Reviewers have no right to take advantage of knowledge about the content of the work before its publication.
4.10. Reviewer who does not have, in his opinion, sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or can not be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the editor with a request to exclude him from the process of reviewing the manuscript.
4.11. Name of the reviewer is known by the Executive editor and Deputy chief editor of the Journal. This information is not disclosed.
in the activities of the Chief editor.
In its activities, the Chief editor is responsible for the publication of copyright works, which imposes the need to follow the following fundamental principles:
5.1. When making a decision on publication the Chief editor of the Journal is guided by the reliability of the data presentation and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.
5.2. Chief editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.
5.3. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
5.4. Chief editor should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
5.5. Chief editor undertakes to:
– constantly improve the Magazine;
– follow the principle of freedom of opinion;
– strive to meet the needs of readers and authors of the Journal;
– exclude the influence of business interests or politics on the decision-making on the publication of materials;
– make the decision to publish the materials according to the following main criteria: the manuscript fits the scope of the Journal; the relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted article; clarity; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions.
The quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the decision to publish;
– take all reasonable measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information;
– take into account the recommendations of reviewers when making a final decision on the publication of the article. The responsibility for the decision to publish lies entirely with the Editorial Board of the Journal;
– to justify the decision in case of acceptance or rejection of article;
– to provide the author of the reviewed material with an opportunity to substantiate his research position;
– at change of structure of editorial Board not to cancel the decision of the previous structure about the publication of a material.
5.6. Chief editor together with the Deputy chief editor should not leave unanswered claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, as well as in identifying a conflict situation to take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights.
5.7. All the above mentioned principles of professional ethics in the activities of the Chief editor apply to the Deputy chief editor.
6.1. Compliance with publication ethics by the Editorial Board.
6.2. Compliance with guidelines when rejecting articles.
6.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing.
6.4. Prevention of damage to intellectual and ethical norms in the presence of commercial interests.
6.5. Willingness to post corrections, clarifications, rejections and apologies when needed.
6.6. Prevent publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.
In order to avoid cases of violation of publication ethics, it is necessary to exclude the conflict of interests of all parties involved in the process of publication of the manuscript. A conflict of interest arises if an author, reviewer, or Editorial Board member has a financial, scientific, or personal relationship that may affect their actions.
Such relationships are called dual obligations, competing interests, or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the Journal, each of the parties has the following responsibilities.
7.1. Editor owes:
– transfer the manuscript for consideration to another member of the Editorial Board if the originally appointed Reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;
– to request information from all participants in the process of publication of the manuscript about the possibility of competing interests;
– decide to publish the information specified in the author's letter concerning the conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may affect the evaluation of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;
– to ensure the publication of amendments, if information about the conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.
7.2. Author owes:
– indicate the place of work and the source of funding for the study (if any).
7.3. Reviewer owes:
– report Chief editor about the presence of conflict of interest (dual commitments, competing interests) and to withdraw from reviewing the manuscript.
8.1. In the event of a situation involving a violation of publication ethics on the part of the editor, author or reviewer, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished material. The Editorial Board is obliged to demand an explanation, without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties.
If material containing significant inaccuracies has been published, it should be corrected immediately in a form accessible to readers and indexing systems.
8.2. Basis for retraction of the article is:
– detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
– duplication of articles in several editions;
– detection of falsifications or fabrications in the work (for example, falsification of experimental data);
– detection of serious errors in the work (for example, incorrect interpretation of the results), which casts doubt on its scientific value;
– incorrect composition of authors (there is no one who deserves to be an author; persons who do not meet the criteria of authorship are included);
– hidden conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
– republication of the article without the author's consent.