Scientific Publication Ethics

The editorial board of the conference proceedings is guided by the Law of the Russian Federation on mass media, the Charter of the editorial board, as well as current versions of the recommendations and standards of The Committee on publication ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE, http://publicationethics.org/). Taking into account the experience of reputable scientific journals and publishers, the editorial board organizes internal processes and external interaction in such a way as to ensure compliance with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community. The Declaration of ethics of scientific publications unites and reveals the General principles and rules that should guide the participants in the process of scientific publications: authors, reviewers, editors, publisher.

1. Authors' responsibilities

• The authors of the publication can be only those persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, development, implementation of experiments, interpretation of the results of the study, as well as to the process of writing the manuscript (including conducting scientific and stylistic editing in accordance with the requirements of the publication).
• The sequence of co-authors is determined by co-authors themselves. It is recommended that the first author in the list of co-authors should be a member of the team of authors of the manuscript, who took the greatest part in the process of preparing the text and is familiar with the entire process of scientific work.
• The same author is recommended to be a «corresponding author» for correspondence and communication with the editors and readers (after the publication of the article).
• The corresponding author should make sure that all participants who made a significant contribution to the study are listed as co-authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed, and also that all co-authors had read and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
• The consent of all authors to publish the final version of the article must be confirmed by their signing the Consent to publish or the License agreement form provided by the editorial board.
• In case of questions related to the processes of preliminary evaluation and peer-review of the article, the authors should give agreed answers.
• When submitting an article to editors, the authors must be sure and guarantee that their work is published for the first time, all the data presented in the work are real and authentic. If some elements of the work were previously published in another article, the authors are obliged to refer to an earlier work and indicate what is the significant difference between the new work and the previous one. Verbatim copying of own works and their paraphrasing are unacceptable, they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions.
• All authors should disclose in their work any significant conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the study or their interpretation. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed are: receiving financial compensation for participation in research or writing a manuscript; any connection (work under contract, consulting, stock ownership, receiving fees, providing expert opinions) with organizations that have a direct interest in the subject of research or review; patent application or copyright for the results of the research; obtaining financial support for any of the stages of the research or manuscript writing (including grants). Clear and potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as soon as possible. Information on conflicts of interest is published in the full text of the article.
• If the manuscript contains the results of research carried out with the financial support of organizations, for example, sponsoring grants, the authors are obliged to indicate this fact in the prescribed wording, indicating the number and timing of the project, the name of the organization.
• The editors ask the authors to adhere to the principles of humanity and bioethics in research relating to biological objects.
• The authors are responsible for the quality of materials provided. The article must be in accordance with the requirements. Deviation from these requirements is allowed only in agreement with the editors and only in order to improve the quality of publication.
• Information about the authors must be reliable. In case of changes in any information prior to publication, the authors should immediately notify the editors.
• If the author have found a significant error or inaccuracy in his published article, he is obliged to immediately notify the editor or publisher of the journal and assist them in eliminating or correcting the error. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author is obliged to immediately remove or correct them, or provide the editorial board with evidence of the correctness of the original article.
• The list of references must contain sources that actually exist. If Internet sources are used, hyperlinks to them must be valid. Instead of hyperlinks, it is preferable to use DOIs if available.
• The contribution of others to the study should always be recognized. Authors should refer to publications that were important for their scientific work covered in the manuscript.
• Data obtained informally (e.g. during a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) should not be used or submitted without the confirmed permission of the original source (e.g. in writing).
• Information obtained from confidential sources shall not be mentioned in the manuscript without the permission of the author of the manuscript who is directly related to the relevant confidential sources.
• Many papers, mostly devoted to the same research, should not be submitted for consideration and publication in more than one edition. Identification of the fact of non-original work submission will be regarded as a violation of publication ethics, entailing refusal to publish.
• The direct use of generative neural networks when creating an article is not welcome, the generated text is detected by systems such as "Anti-Plagiarism.UNIVERSITY" and is marked as suspicious. In any case, the facts given in the article must be reliable, and their primary sources are quoted.

2. Originality, plagiarism, evaluation approaches

• Plagiarism, as the representation of someone else's work as the author's one and/or copying, paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's works (without attribution), the statement of own rights to the results of someone else's research, ideas, text, images, is unacceptable. In all forms, plagiarism is an unethical act.
• Articles containing plagiarism, rough borrowings, incorrect citation are not published.
• The manuscript authors should submit entirely original work. References to the results obtained by other authors should be accompanied by references to the relevant primary sources.
• Direct citation of the text previously published anywhere should be framed as DIRECT SPEECH, and it should be enclosed in quotation marks with the obligatory indication of the source. The inclusion of large fragments of borrowed text in the manuscript is unacceptable.
• Articles sent to the editorial board may be subject to a single or multiple checks in automated borrowing detecting systems. The authors can request information about the method of checking (the name of the service or program, the selected options, the principles for selection of text fragments for verification), but the decision on the results of the audit is made by the editorial board.
• If illegal borrowings are detected, as well as if the coefficient of originality of the text is low, the work is rejected from publication. The editorial board uses an expert, rather than an automatic percentage approach in assessing originality. The benchmark is the required level of originality of 75%, which, as a rule, includes "pure" originality, determined by the results of automatic verification, self-citation within reasonable limits, correctly executed citations, as well as technical citations (for example, small excerpts from laws, standards, generally accepted definitions, technical characteristics of products).
• The text identified by the service or the loan verification program as suspicious is subject to the expert assessment of the verifier. If there are signs of technical masking of borrowings in the article file, such an article will be rejected. If the use of generative neural networks is suspected, the verifier will perform an expert assessment of the suspicious fragment with a decision on its significance.
• The identification of plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of data can be carried out within the framework of scientific review, as well as after the publication of works, including upon the fact of readers' appeals with relevant statements. If the fact of illegal borrowing of data, including the results of scientific work, or an idea is established, the article will be withdrawn and rejected from publication, even if it has already been published.

3. Responsibility of reviewers

• Review of the article may be performed by members of the editorial board, as well as invited by the editor-in-chief experts competent in the field of research of the submitted article, who agreed to be guided by these rules of ethics of scientific publications and instructions for reviewers.
• Reviews of scientific works must be objective. Personal criticism of the authors of publication is not allowed. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and convincingly.
• Any work submitted for examination is considered as a confidential document. Without the prior permission of the editor-in-chief, it is unacceptable to discuss it with other reviewers or experts.
• Unpublished materials used in the submitted work should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the written consent of the author.
• Confidential information or ideas obtained during the review shall remain confidential and shall not be used for the personal benefit or benefit of third parties. Reviewers shall not participate in the review of works, the results of which they are personally interested in.
• Reviewers should identify previously published materials in the reviewed work that have not been cited by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have already been used in any publications should be appropriately formulated with reference to the source. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor's attention to the significant or partial similarity with any other work with which the reviewer is directly familiar.

4. Duties of editor-in-chief and editorial board

• The editor-in-chief has full responsibility and authority for the right to reject or accept an article. The decision to accept the publication is made on the basis of the goals and objectives of the edition, its information policy, the results of the review, the opinion of the editorial Board members, and the compliance with current legislation in the field of copyright.
• The editor-in-chief and the members of the editorial board should not have any conflict of interest with respect to the articles they reject or accept. The editorial board evaluates the works solely on their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political views of the authors.
• The editorial board keeps the anonymity of the reviewers.
• The editorial board retains the anonymity of the authors until a positive decision on the publication of the article, as well as if the article is rejected. The anonymity of the authors cannot be ensured after the publication of the conference program; in this case, the names of the authors may be known to the reviewers.
• The editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board have no right to disclose information about the works submitted for review to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, other editorial consultants and the publisher.
• The editor-in-chief and the members of the editorial board have no right to use in any way unpublished materials contained in the submitted works without the consent of the authors.
• The editor-in-chief can act as one of the reviewers.
• When selecting reviewers, the editor-in-chief takes into account that the reviewer cannot be the author or a member of the author's team, the scientific supervisor of the author or the official under whose authority the author is, as well as a subordinate person to the author by position.
• In case of a positive decision of the reviewers and the editor-in-chief, the article is approved for published in current edition of conference proceedings. Further formal procedures (preparation of documents, payment, editorial preparation) are required for the publication of the article.

5. Regulation of publishing ethics

• The editorial and publishing process includes monitoring of compliance with the principles of publishing ethics, ensures the preservation of unity and consistency of ethical norms.
• The editorial and publishing process ensures the exclusion of violations of intellectual property and ethical standards caused by financial mechanisms. In this regard, the publishing house guarantees that the process of reviewing materials prepared in the framework of, for example, a scientific grant, is the same as for articles prepared in the framework of independent research of the authors.
• All types of submitted works are accepted solely on the basis of their relevance and attractiveness to the readership and are not affected by commercial aspects.
• The editorial and publishing team is ready to publish corrections and updates to ethical norms, if necessary, and according to the current trends in the field of publishing processes.