Regulations on publication ethics of the research and practice journal
The editor of the journal Penitentiary Science adheres to international standards of publication ethics and endeavors to prevent their violation. The main provisions of the journals’ publication ethics have been compiled on the basis of international standards proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE.
1. Ethical guidelines for authors
In order to ensure the integrity of scientific research, authors should adhere to international standards for scholarly research publications. The editor reserves the right to reject an article in case of violation of the guidelines set out below.
1.1. When submitting the manuscript for publication in the journal Penitentiary Science, the author should guarantee that the article is original, i.e. it has not been published earlier elsewhere in the current form or similar content; that it has not been submitted to other publishers; that all possible conflicts of interest related to copyright, and to the publication of the article have been settled.
1.2. The author confirms that the publication does not violate any existing copyright, and guarantees to indemnify for any damage if such violations are found.
1.3. The author guarantees the reliability and validity of submitted materials, i.e. that the research complies to ethical and legal standards; that it has been conducted thoroughly and carefully, using appropriate methods of analysis; that the results are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
1.4. The author guarantees the accuracy of all information about himself/herself, the absence of plagiarism and other forms of illegal borrowing in manuscripts, proper execution of all citations and quotations, tables, diagrams, illustrations. Verbatim copying of more than 10 percent of another author’s work without specifying its authorship and links to its source, and without the use of quotation marks is not allowed.
1.5. The author guarantees that the work does not contain self-plagiarism. If some parts of the manuscript have been previously published in another article, the author should cite the earlier work, and point out in what way the new work differs from the earlier one; the author should also reveal the relationship between the present work and research findings and conclusions presented in the earlier work. Verbatim copying of the author’s own works and their paraphrasing is unacceptable; it can only be used as a basis for new findings.
1.6. Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover a significant error in their already published work. Authors should cooperate with the editor in deciding upon the recognition of the error or its correction.
1.7. The author shall provide the information about the funding sources of the work, and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.
1.8. To make distribution convenient and to ensure implementation of the policy on the use of materials, authors transfer the right of exclusive ownership of the manuscript to the publisher, unless otherwise specified.
2. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
Peer review plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. All peer reviewers should adhere to certain basic principles and standards of publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and unbiased.
2.1. Peer reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
2.2. Peer reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from hostile or inflammatory comments.
2.3. Peer reviewers should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peerreview process, to anyone beyond those that are authorized by the journal’s editor.
2.4. Peer reviewers should not use information obtained during the peerreview process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
2.5. Peer reviewers should declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant conflict of interest.
3. Ethical guidelines for the editor
The editor of the journal Penitentiary Science should follow editorial policies to ensure the integrity of the research record.
3.1. The editor carries out an independent policy of selection and publication of scholarly research findings, and guarantees that the published materials comply with international standards and ethical principles.
3.2. The editor accepts or rejects a paper for publication on the basis of its importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or political beliefs of the author.
3.3. The editor issues corrections and retractions when needed, and also pursues suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct
3.4. The editor should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and unbiased peer review process and its confidentiality.
3.5. The editor should protect the reputation of the authors and respond to all allegations or suspicions of plagiarism and other misconduct related to the papers published in the journal. If the cases of plagiarism, fraudulence, and other misconduct are detected, the editor has the right to impose the following sanctions on the authors: to reject the submitted manuscript, retract the publication, impose a ban on the publication in the journal within a specified period.
The editor reserves the right not to respond to allegations or suspicions of plagiarism, if the accuser provides false personal information (for example, a false name) or acts in an unethical or threatening manner. The editor has no obligation to discuss the cases of alleged plagiarism with persons who bear no direct relation to them.
When considering articles, the reviewers are entitled to verify that materials do not contain plagiarism by using the “Antiplagiat” system. If the reviews contain information about numerous plagiarisms the editor shall proceed in accordance with the rules of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, http://publicationethics.org/about).
4. Retracting a publication
When considering cases of violation of publication ethics, the editor acts in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines and ASEP rules for retraction of articles.
An article can be retracted upon official request of the journal’s editor or author. Anonymous requests and requests made by persons who are not directly involved in the matter shall not be considered. Articles can be retracted if: 1) they have plagiarism in the text, figures, graphs, tables, etc. if the fact of plagiarism became apparent after the publication of the article; third parties present their claims concerning copyright on the article or parts of it; 2) the article has been published elsewhere before the date of its publication in the journal; 3) the published article has serious errors that cast doubt on its scientific value.
In such circumstances the editor initiates an inspection, after which the article may be withdrawn. A letter that states the reasons for retraction is sent to the author.
In such a case, the article is not withdrawn from the printed copies of the journal, nor is it deleted from the journal’s website. The editor publishes a notification on retraction of the article on the relevant page of the journal’s content on the journal’s official website.
Information about retracted articles is sent to the National Electronic Library (elibrary.ru), to CyberLeninka, and to the Board of Ethics of Scientific Publications (so that the information can be added to the unified database of retracted articles).
The journal’s editor carefully considers all reasonable requests concerning the violations found in the published materials. The editor considers it the responsibility of the author and the reviewer to inform the editor as soon as possible about missed errors and violations revealed after the article was published.