About the journal Editorial Policy For authors Archives Advanced search Arctic News |
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a means of scientific communication and contributes a lot to the development of the respective field of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is important to establish a standard for ethical conduct of all the parties involved in the publishing process: the Editorial Office, Authors and Reviewers. All parties are responsible for publication and dissemination of research findings.
General provisions of publication ethics of ‘Arctic and North’ are based on the ethical standards devised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Editorial Board does its best to prevent any misconduct and violation of publication ethics.
1. Publication Ethics for the Editorial Office
1.1. The Editorial Office of the journal adheres to the principles of scientific integrity and reliability, fair, unbiased and professional behavior.
1.2. The Editorial Office guarantees consideration of all the manuscripts submitted for publication, editorial independence and impartial decisions made without any prejudice to nationality, religion, job title and affiliation of the authors; regardless of commercial benefit and relationship with the Founder of the journal; based on respect to personal and intellectual property rights of the authors.
1.3. The Editorial Office pursues the policy of ensuring and improving the quality of the publication, making a significant contribution to Russian and international science, satisfying the needs of the readers and the authors.
1.4. The Editorial Office can make alternations to the manuscripts, publish corrections and refutations (even retract the articles, if necessary), and never ignores the instances of misconduct in research and publication.
1.5. The Editorial Office guarantees that all the manuscripts or any other data published in the journal meet international standards and ethical principles.
1.6. The Editorial Office protects authors’ reputation. In case of identifying plagiarism or any other research or publication misconduct, the Editorial Office is entitled to reject the manuscript, retract the publication or ban publishing in the journal.
1.7. The decision about accepting or rejecting a manuscript for publication is based on the expert opinion of independent reviewers. Authors are informed about the final decision of the Editorial Office and its motivation.
2. Publication Ethics for Authors
• the manuscript has not been published elsewhere (in print and/or in electronic media);
2.4. The author should ensure that his personal information is correct; the manuscript does not contain any form of plagiarism or other types of unlawful borrowings.
2.5. All copyright sources both by authors and other researchers should be appropriately cited or quoted; reusing parts of previous works or rephrasing are acceptable only as a basis for novel conclusions to present a research at various stages of its evolution. Where the authors use texts, data, images or ideas from other sources, they should be cited or quoted as well.
2.6. The author must alert the Editorial Office immediately if he discovers an error in any submitted, accepted or published work and cooperate with the Editorial Office in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
2.7. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
2.8. The author assigns to the Publisher the rights for publication and distribution of the article (to publish, distribute, print, copy or reproduce the manuscript in any form) on a gratuitous basis.
3. Publication Ethics for Reviewers 3.2. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author(s) that may bias their review. 3.3. Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process without the explicit permission of the editor. 3.4. They must not enter unpublished manuscript files, images or information into databases or tools that do not guarantee confidentiality, are accessible by the public and / or may store or use this information for their own purposes (for example, generative AI tools like ChatGPT). 3.5. Reviewers must prepare their report by themselves, unless they have permission from the journal to involve another person. They must also not impersonate others during the review process. 3.6. Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence tools to generate manuscript review reports, including LLM based tools like ChatGPT. 3.7. Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring any references included within their report are accurate and verifiable. 3.8. Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware. 3.9. The reviewer should notify the Editorial Office of "Arctic and North" if he does not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript or cannot carry out a proper assessment in time, and ask the Editorial Office to excuse himself from the review process.
3.10. The reviewer identifies relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement previously published should be appropriately referenced in the manuscript with a bibliographic citation.
|
