Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (VNIRO) is guided by the principles of publishing ethics, formed on the basis of international standards, declarations and codes (https://publicationethics.org/; http://rasep.ru/images/docs/declaration_anri_2016.pdf), the provisions of Chapter 70 "Copyright" of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (GK-RF.ru/glava70), and also takes into account the experience of authoritative international and domestic scientific journals and publishing houses.

The present document was adopted at the meeting of the editorial board of "VNIRO" on 28 November 2017 (Protocol № 2).

In order to avoid malpractice, authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, members of the Editorial Board (Editorial Council) of the publishing house and journals should respect the ethical principles and norms presented below concerning publication and dissemination of research results.

Ethical guidelines for authors

The author (or the group of authors) realizes that he has the initial responsibility for the novelty and authenticity of the results of the scientific study, which implies respect for the following principles:

  • authors should provide reliable results of the research carried out;
  • authors must warrant that the research results presented in the manuscript provided are the result of the original study, contain elements of the new knowledge and are available for publication for the first time (this provision does not apply to review articles);
  • authors are obliged to provide editors with a manuscript for publication prepared in strict compliance with the prescribed requirements and also to observe the citation rules;
  • the borrowed fragments or statements must be followed by mandatory reference to the author and the source and be included in the list of references of the manuscript; excessive borrowings as well as plagiarism of all kinds, including self-plagiarism, quotations without reference, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of someone else`s research, are unethical and unacceptable;
  • if authors use references to works from other publications in their manuscripts, they should be familiar with the works and present the references according to the requirements;
  • it is necessary to recognize the contribution of all those who have influenced the study, in particular, the manuscript should contain references to the works which were important for the study;
  • authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that was sent to another publisher or journal and is under consideration, as well as materials already published by another publisher;
  • all the people who have made a significant contribution to the research must be stated as co-authors; it is prohibited to include people who have not participated in the study in the list of co-authors;
  • authors should not allow duplication of publications; if some text segments were published previously, authors must refer to the earlier work and indicate the difference between the new work and the previous one;
  • if authors find significant errors or inaccuracies at the stage of consideration of the manuscript or after its publication, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible and assist the editorial staff in correcting them;
  • authors should disclose conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation and interpretation of their manuscript, as well as the sources of financial support for the project (grants, governmental programs, projects, etc.) that must be mandatory specified in the manuscript;
  • authors must comply with the rules of copyright law.

Ethical guidelines for editors

Editors are responsible for everything published in the publishing house and act on the basis of the following principles:

  • the requirements for manuscripts, the procedure for considering and reviewing them are posted on the VNIRO website by the editorial office;
  • all contents of the manuscript, except for advertising and editorial materials, are compulsorily reviewed by independent experts (blind or double-blind review), double-blind peer review is preferred;
  • the editorial office works to meet the needs of readers, authors and publishers of scientific works, to protect freedom of expression and opinion, to prevent commercial and political interests from compromising intellectual and ethical standards and influencing decision-making on the publication of materials;
  • the editorial board makes decisions on the basis of scientificity, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality, ensures transparency of editorial and publishing activities at all its stages;
  • cooperation with the authors is based on the principles of justice, courtesy, objectivity, honesty and transparency;
  • the editorial office evaluates articles on their content, irrespective of nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political views of the author;
  • based on the results of the verification of the manuscripts identifying its compliance with the requirements and the results of the review, the editorial board decides whether to accept or reject publications;
  • the editorial board has the right to reject the publication with signs of libel, insult, plagiarism or copyright infringement;
  • the editorial board undertakes not to disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the relevant authors, reviewers and, if necessary, the publisher;
  • the editorial office ensures that the materials of the manuscript that was rejected will not be used in own research of the members of the Editorial Board (Editorial Council);
  • the editorial board chooses reviewers which are independent in respect of materials considered for publication, have sufficient experience in the subject area of knowledge and do not have a conflict of interest;
  • if the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the publisher or journals in the opinion of the editors, the editorial office has the right to reject the manuscript without conducting an independent review;
  • the editorial office works to ensure, improve and enhance the professional and formal quality of published materials;
  • the editorial board undertakes to promptly consider every claim to unethical conduct of the authors of manuscripts and already published articles, irrespective of the time of its receipt, and to take adequate measures responding to such claims;
  • if the claim is substantiated, the editorial board has the right to refuse to publish the manuscript, to cease cooperation with the author, to publish an appropriate refutation, and to take other necessary measures to further suppress the unethical behavior of this author;
  • in order to ensure the authenticity of the published data, it is envisaged that the relevant amendments, corrections, clarifications, refutations and apologies can be made as soon as possible by amending when unquestionable errors are detected;
  • the editorial office ensures access to publications, providing storage of materials in leading libraries and scientific information repositories.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

Reviewers conducting scientific expertise of submitted materials should act impartial and guarantee that the manuscripts are reviewed confidentially, independently and objectively, based on the following principles:

  • reviewers should have sufficient experience in the subject area of knowledge and should not have a conflict of interest because of a competitive or other relationship with the author or organization related to the manuscript;
  • the manuscript received for review should be treated as an intellectual property of the author and as a confidential document which cannot be handed over for familiarization or discussion to third parties not authorized by the publisher, Editorial Board (Editorial Council), breach of confidentiality is only possible if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified;
  • reviewers are obliged to assess the results of the research objectively and with strong arguments, personal criticism of the author is inadmissible;
  • unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by reviewers for personal purposes;
  • a reviewer who does not possess, in his view, sufficient qualification for the evaluation of the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must notify the editor of this and request to exclude him from the process of reviewing this manuscript.
  • reviewers should pay the editor's attention to the substantial or partial similarity of the assessed manuscript to any other work, as well as to the facts of the absence of references to the statements, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other authors;
  • reviewers should note the relevant published works that are not quoted in the manuscript;
  • reviewer`s remarks and suggestions must be objective, constructive, principled and impartial, aimed at increasing the scientific level of the manuscript;
  • reviewers must make decisions on the basis of concrete facts and give evidence of their decision;
  • an expert evaluation of the manuscript provided by the reviewer should facilitate the adoption of editorial decisions, and also help the author to improve the manuscript.
  • based on the results of the review, the publisher, the editorial board (editorial council) decide whether they accept the manuscript for publication, return it to the author for revision or reject the publication.
  • all materials are reviewed anonymously, the review of the manuscript and the personal data of the reviewers are confidential;
  • reviewers must provide a review within the time limit set by the editorial office of the journal if the consideration of the manuscript and the preparation of the review within that time frame are impossible, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the publisher or the editor;
  • independent reviewers are informed of all the requirements, they also get information on any changes in editorial and publishing policy.

Ethical guidelines for publishers

In its work, the publishing house is responsible for the publication of works of authorship, following the fundamental principles:

  • publishers should contribute to the abiding by ethical norms and recommendations by authors, editors, members of the editorial board (editorial council), reviewers;
  • publishers should ensure the confidentiality of publications received from authors and any information before it is published;
  • publishers must protect intellectual property and copyright;
  • in case of ethical claims concerning the considered manuscripts or published materials, the publisher must publish corrections, clarifications, refutations, and apologize if necessary;
  • publishers should ensure cooperation with other publishers, including on issues related to ethical matters, tracking errors and publishing refutations;
  • publishers must withdraw the unscrupulous papers;
  • publishers should also ensure the timely release of author’s publications, scientific journals.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________

 

Basic terms used in this document

Ethics of scientific publicationsmean a system of norms for professional conduct in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, disseminating and using scientific publications.

Editormeans a representative of a publishing house or a scientific journal which prepares materials for publication, and also maintains communication with reviewers, authors and readers of scientific publications.

Authormeans a person or a group of people (a group of authors) involved in the creation of a publication of the results of a scientific study.

Reviewermeans an expert acting on behalf of the publishing house or scientific journal and conducting an independent scientific examination of submitted materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Publishermeans a legal entity or an individual who publishes a scientific work.

Readermeans any person who has read the published materials.

Manuscriptmeans an author`s work submitted for publication but not published yet.

Review articlemeans an article (systematic review, meta-analysis) devoted to the analysis of scientific achievements in a certain field of knowledge, allowing on the basis of systematization and generalization of disparate data to assess the state of certain scientific problems, as well as trends and prospects for their solution.

Plagiarismmeans the deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else's work of science or art, other people's ideas or inventions, which leads to violation of copyright and patent laws and, as such, may entail civil, criminal and administrative liability.

Self-plagiarismmeans the repeated publication by the author himself of significant parts of his own works without indicating that they have already been published earlier.