All articles submitted for publication in the journal "Narcology", are reviewed for originality, ethics and significance. Compliance with standards of ethical behavior is important for all parties involved in the publication: authors, editors of the journal, reviewers, publisher. These provisions are based on the Good Practice Guidelines for Scientific Publications of the Ethics of Scientific Publications Committee (COPE).
1. Introduction
1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple method of scientific communications, but also contributes significantly to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal editors, Reviewers and the Publisher.
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all current recommendations in the published work.
1.3. The publisher undertakes to strictly supervise scientific materials.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Decision on publication
The editor of the scientific journal "Narcology" is personally and independently responsible for the decision to publish. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision to publish. The editor can be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal Narcology, being limited by the current legal requirements for libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
The editor can confer with other editors and reviewers in the course of the decision to publish.
2.2. Decency
The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The Editor and the Editorial Board of the journal "Narcology" are obligated, without the need to not disclose information on the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration can not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas received during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should withdraw from the consideration of manuscripts (namely: ask the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing the work instead of self-reviewing and deciding) in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relations with Authors, companies and, possibly, other organizations associated with the manuscript.
2.5. Supervision of publications
The editor, who provided convincing evidence that the allegations or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous, must notify the Publisher of this in order to notify promptly of the changes, the removal of the publication, the expression of concern and other relevant statements.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in research
The Editor, together with the Publisher, shall take adequate response in the event of ethical claims relating to the manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the corresponding complaint or requirement, but may also imply interactions with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Obligations of Reviewers
3.1. Impact on the decisions of the Editorial Board
Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision about publishing and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of his work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, located at the very heart of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to carry out substantial work on the review of the manuscript.
3.2. Exercise
Any selected Reviewer who lacks the skills to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to do the work quickly must notify the Editor-in-Chief or the Publisher and ask him to exclude him from the process of reviewing the corresponding manuscript.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review should be considered a confidential document. This work can not be opened and discussed with any persons not authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity
The reviewer must give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their views.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published works relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. For any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier, the manuscript must have a corresponding bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is in the scientific competence of the Reviewer.
3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration can not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas received during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the examination of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1 Authors of the original research should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be unmistakably presented. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, the point of view of the Editorial Board should be clearly indicated.
4.2. Access to and storage of data
Authors may be asked for raw data related to the manuscript for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (as per ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to keep this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors must ensure that the original work is submitted in its entirety, in case of using the works or statements of other Authors, they should provide relevant bibliographic references or excerpts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from representing someone else's work as author's before copying or rephrasing the essential parts of someone else's works (without attribution) and before claiming their own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1 In the general case, the Author should not publish a manuscript, for the most part devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. The presentation of the same manuscript simultaneously in more than one magazine is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In the general case, the Author should not submit a previously published article to another journal.
4.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, clinical recommendations, translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and editors of interested journals should agree to a secondary publication, which necessarily contains the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work. The bibliography of primary work should be presented in the second publication. For more information on acceptable forms of secondary (repeat) publications, see www.icmje.org.
4.5. Recognition of primary sources
It is always necessary to recognize the contribution of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the granting of grants, should not be used without the explicit written permission of the Author of work relating to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of publication
4.6.1 The authors of the publication may be only persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of work, the development, implementation or interpretation of the presented study. All those who have made a significant contribution must be identified as Co-authors. In those cases where the study participants made a significant contribution to a particular area in the research project, they should be listed as persons who have made a significant contribution to this study.
4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are represented as Co-authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, that all Co-authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that act as objects of research
4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures or equipment in the operation of which any unusual risk is possible, the Author must clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of research, the authors must ensure that the manuscript states that all stages of the research are in accordance with the legislation and regulatory documents of the research organizations and are approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly reflect that informed consent has been obtained from all people who have become the objects of research. It is always necessary to monitor the observance of the rights to privacy.
4.8. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having affected the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are necessarily subject to disclosure include employment, consulting, stock ownership, receipt of fees, provision of expert opinions, patent applications or patent registration, grants and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Significant errors in published works
If the Author finds material errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must notify the Editor or Publisher and cooperate with them in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains material errors, the Author must withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
5. Obligations of the Publisher
5.1 The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the implementation of ethical duties by the Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal Narcology in accordance with these requirements. The publisher should be sure that the potential profit from the placement of advertising or the production of reprints did not affect the editors' decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support the Journal's editors in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published material and helping to interact with other journals and / or publishers, if this facilitates the performance of duties by the Editors.
5.3. The publisher should promote good practice in conducting research and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for removing and correcting errors.
5.4 The publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice), if necessary.