Publishing Ethics

Introduction

The Editorial Board of Economics of Science journal takes a responsible approach to the task of maintaining the scientific reputation and is responsible for ensuring that all published materials meet rigorous academic criteria. The Editorial Board of the journal relies, in particular, on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), the Russian Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (RASEP), and the experience of reputable international journals and publishers. Ethical standards of our journal apply to all parties involved in the publication process (authors, editors, reviewers, publisher and scientific community).

The Editorial Board of  Economics of Science expects all participants of the publication process adhere to the internationally recognized standards of academic publishing.

Declaration of Privacy

Personal information provided by authors to the Editorial Board of the journal Economics of Science, including e-mail addresses, will be used exclusively for the purposes of scientific publication. The Editorial Board undertakes not to disclose personal information to third parties.

We adhere to the following  publishing ethics principles:

Right of first publication: By submitting a manuscript to the journal Economics of Science, the author(s) confirm(s) that the submitted scientific work has not been previously published and is not under consideration in other journals. All incoming submissions are screened for plagiarism using Antiplagiat.

Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest: All parties involved in the peer review and publication process (editors, authors, and reviewers) must consider and disclose affiliations that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest (financial relationships (e.g., employment, consulting, equity ownership, royalties, patents, or paid peer review), personal relationships, political or religious interests, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs).

Authorship:

The Editorial Board of Economics of Science, following the COPE recommendation, requires authors to have contributed substantially to the research and to accept responsibility for it.

In order to correctly define the contribution, we recommend the authors use the CRediT - Contributor Roles Taxonomy scheme.

For more information, see Authorship and Contributorship.

Policy on the use of GenAI:

Generative artificial intelligence and AI-based technologies can be used in academic literature to improve the language of a manuscript, including grammar, syntax, and spelling. In this case, no declaration of AI use is required from the author(s).

In all other cases, authors must declare the use of generative AI technologies in the “Additional Information” section. The statement may be as follows: “During the preparation of this article, we used [name of tool/service] for [reason]. After using this tool/service, we reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the published article.” This means that the use of AI technologies must be accompanied by human supervision and control. Authors should carefully review and edit the results obtained, as text generated by AI can often be erroneous, incomplete, or biased. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their work.

If the manuscript contains images created or modified using generative AI or AI-supported tools, authors must disclose this in the “Additional Information” section, providing a detailed description of when and how these tools were used. In addition, authors must confirm that they have obtained all necessary rights to use such materials.

Authorship of a manuscript can only be attributed to a human. AI and AI-supported technologies cannot be listed as authors or co-authors due to their inability to meet the criteria for authorship: they cannot take responsibility for the work, give consent for publication, manage copyright, or resolve issues related to conflicts of interest.

Funding: The editors of Economic of Science journal require authors to disclose all funding sources in their manuscripts.

Significant errors in published work: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is his/her responsibility to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of the journal and to co-operate with the editorial team to publish a retraction or correction of the article. If the Editor-in-Chief is notified by a third party that the published work contains a significant error, it is the author's responsibility to promptly retract or correct the article, or to provide the Editor-in-Chief with evidence substantiating the accuracy of the published work.

Citation and acknowledgement of primary sources

Authors of scientific articles published in Economics of Science are required to observe proper citation practices. The citation should be reasonable, appropriate to the context of the research and contribute to the academic discourse.

Is unacceptable:

• Excessive self-citation that distorts the author's contribution to the research.
• ‘Manipulative citation’ - inclusion of references to works solely to increase their citation value or under pressure from editors/authors.
• Incorrect borrowing without indicating the source (plagiarism).

Authors are responsible for proper citation practices and accuracy of bibliographic data.

The journal strictly prohibits Editor-in-Chief, reviewers, or Editorial Board members from coercing authors to reference the RANEPA publications, their own works, or colleagues' research as a prerequisite for publication. Any recommendations for citation of papers should be based on their scientific significance and aim to improve the submitted material.

Violation of citation norms is considered as a violation of publication ethics and may lead to refusal of publication or withdrawal of the article.

Responsibilities of Editors

1. Procedure for deciding on publication

The final decision to publish an article in Economics of Science is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the conclusions of reviewers and recommendations of the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content of all materials published in the journal.

2. Principle of impartiality

The Editorial Board evaluates scientific manuscripts solely on the basis of their intellectual content and compliance with the criteria of the journal. It is not allowed to discriminate authors on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship or political views.

3. Confidentiality

The editor and members of the editorial board are obliged to ensure the confidentiality of information about the received manuscripts. Only authors, assigned reviewers, scientific advisors, and publisher's representatives have access to the materials.

4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

4.1 Use of unpublished data

Any data or ideas generated during the review process may not be used for personal or commercial purposes without the written permission of the author(s). Reviewers and editors are obliged to keep such information confidential.

4.2 Managing Conflicts of Interest

If an editor or reviewer has a conflict of interest (e.g. personal, professional or financial ties to authors or organisations associated with the research), they must recuse themselves from the manuscript review process.

5. Publication Oversight

An editor who has provided convincing evidence that the claims or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should report this to the Publisher for prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern, and other situation-appropriate statements.

6. Involvement and co-operation in research

The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher, shall take adequate responses to ethical complaints regarding manuscripts or published material reviewed. Such responses generally include engagement with the authors of the manuscript and the arguments of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve engagement with relevant organisations and research centres.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Role of the reviewer in the editorial process

Reviewing plays a key role in the editorial decision to publish a research paper. It not only helps to assess the quality of the research, but also contributes to its improvement through constructive feedback. Economics of Science adheres to the principle that participation in peer review is a professional obligation of the scientific community.

2. Timeliness and competence

A reviewer who receives an invitation to evaluate a manuscript should accept it only if he/she:

- have a sufficient expertise in the research topic;

- can provide the review within the established deadlines.

If the reviewer does not fulfil these conditions, he/she must notify the editorial office immediately and withdraw from the process.

3. Observance of confidentiality

Materials sent for review are confidential. They may not be passed on to third parties, discussed in open sources or used for personal purposes without the consent of the authors and the editorial board.

4. Objectivity and reasoned evaluation

The reviewer should:

- give a balanced and unbiased assessment of the scientific content of the work;

- avoid subjective judgements and personal criticism of the authors;

- clearly justify all comments and recommendations.

5. Academic compliance review

The reviewer's responsibilities include:

- checking completeness of citations and availability of references to key works on the topic;

- identifying possible cases of incorrect borrowing or plagiarism;

- informing the editorial board about significant similarities of the reviewed work with already published materials.

6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

6.1 Use of data from peer-reviewed manuscripts

It is prohibited to use ideas, methods, or results from unpublished work without written permission from the authors. All information obtained during the review process must remain confidential.

6.2 Conditions of the reviewer's withdrawal

A reviewer should not participate in the evaluation of a manuscript if he/she has:

- personal, professional, or financial ties with the authors;

- Disclosure of Competing Interests (For more details, see section);

- affiliation with organisations interested in the results of the study.

In such cases, it is necessary to report the conflict of interest to the Editorial Board and withdraw from the review.

Responsibilities of Authors

1. Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1 Authors of a paper on 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 should be presented in an unmistakable manner. The work should contain sufficient detail and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2 Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, with the Editorial Board's point of view clearly stated.

4.2 Access to and storage of data

Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from the Authors for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

3. Originality and plagiarism

3.1 The journal strictly monitors that published articles are original and plagiarism-free, therefore we ask authors to be careful about the design of references, citations and to indicate all authors of the submitted materials. The editorial board follows the attitude that plagiarism is unacceptable in science. According to the editorial policy, the presence of plagiarism in the submitted material makes it impossible to publish this text, as well as other articles of the author in the journal in the future.

The editorial board of the journal can check the manuscript with the help of the Antiplagiat system when reviewing the article. English-language manuscripts can be additionally checked in the ‘iThenticate’ programme.

3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as the author's, to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of other people's work (without attribution), to claiming one's own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneous publications

4.1 An author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is perceived as unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

2. Recognition of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be recognised. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluations or grants, should not be used without explicit written authorisation from the Authors of the work relating to the confidential sources.

3. authorship of the publication

6.3.1 Only individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the work, design, execution, or interpretation of the research presented may be Authors of a publication. All those who have made a significant contribution should be labelled as Co-authors.

6.3.2 The journal Economics of Science adheres to the following criteria of authorship:

1. Substantial contribution to the conceptualisation or planning of a scientific work, or the derivation, analysis or interpretation of that work; and
2. Writing a draft manuscript or critically revising it with valuable intellectual content; and
3. final approval of the published version of the manuscript; and
4. Agreeing to accept responsibility for all aspects of the work and guaranteeing that all issues relating to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work can be adequately investigated and resolved.

In addition to taking responsibility for those parts of the work that the author performed himself/herself, he/she should have an idea of which co-authors are responsible for other specific components of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions. All individuals designated as authors must meet all four criteria for an author, and all individuals meeting these four criteria must be identified as authors.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

6.3.3 Contributions of authors and non-authors

The Acknowledgements section may mention people who contributed to the work but do not fulfil the criteria for authorship, for example: supporting the study, acting as a mentor, assisting with data collection, coordinating the study, etc.

To correctly identify contributions, authors of Economics of Science can use one of the schema recommended by COPE - CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. More detailed information is provided in the section “Authorship and Contributorship.”

6.3.4 Disputes

In case of disputes about authorship, the work with the article is terminated regardless of the stage (consideration, reviewing, editing or preparation for printing) it is at.

All co-authors are informed about the occurrence of an authorship dispute by e-mail.

The Editor of Economics of Science has the right to specify the exact period within which the authors can provide clarification on the requested issues. After the expiration of this period, the article is withdrawn from publication with the corresponding explanation.

If a dispute arises with respect to a published article, the editorial board of the journal Economics of Science publishes a correction, refutation, or withdrawal of the article, indicating the reason for making changes to the published document.

If it is necessary to add or exclude a co-author before or after publication, the Editorial Board of Economics of Science acts in accordance with the COPE rules:

https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/node/34601

6.3.5 To prevent manipulations with co-authorship, the Editorial Board of the Economics of Science journal uses the COPE flowchart and when working with the article draws attention to the following:

- It is indicated that the research was funded by an organisation whose authors are not on the common list. This requires a more thorough check of the contribution of all authors and, if necessary, requesting the necessary explanations from the responsible author.

- the list of authors includes scientists from another scientific field. This may indicate guest authorship.

- mentioning a person in the Acknowledgements section without specifying a specific contribution.

- a very long or very short list of authors that is atypical for the field or type of article.

- incomplete description of the authors' contribution: for example, no information about who prepared the draft version of the manuscript or processed the data.

- Anti-Plagiarism check shows that there are borrowings from a dissertation paper whose author is not listed in the list of authors.

- articles on similar topics were published by other teams of authors.

- the list of authors suddenly changes at the stage of article publication without prior discussion with the journal`s Editorial Board.

- the author has a lot of publications, although his/her position does not imply such publication activity (head of department, director of an institute).

- the author responsible for correspondence cannot respond to the reviewers' comments.

6.3.6. the Editorial Board of the journal Economics of Science expects organisations affiliated with the author to be willing to participate in the investigation of authorship disputes.

7. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

7.1 All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the paper.

7.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consultancy, share ownership, receipt of honoraria, provision of expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

8. Significant errors in published works

If the author discovers substantial errors or inaccuracies in a publication, the author should inform the Editor of Economics of Science or the Publisher and liaise with the Editor to withdraw the publication or correct the errors as soon as possible. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

1. Adherence to Editorial Policies

The Publisher must follow policies and procedures that promote the fulfilment of ethical responsibilities by the editors, reviewers and authors of Economics of Science in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must ensure that potential profits from advertising or reprint production have not influenced the decisions of the Editors.

2. Editorial Board Support

The Publisher shall fully assist the Editorial Board in:

- handling ethical complaints;

- resolving disputes;

- organising cooperation with other scientific publications

- implementation of editorial policy in accordance with international standards.

3. Development of scientific practices

The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retraction procedures, and error correction.

4. Legal support

The publisher should provide appropriate specialised legal support (opinion or advice) where necessary.

Complaints and appeals

The Editorial Board of Economics of Science is sensitive to complaints about the behaviour of editors and reviewers, which may relate to issues such as breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information obtained during the review process. Authors may also disagree with decisions about expressing doubts about certain articles or complain about violations of editorial processes.

All complaints can be submitted via ecna@ranepa.ru and they will be processed in the standard manner. The complaint review process takes no more than 7 days. The person who sent the complaint will be informed about the decision, the measures to be taken and the timeframe for their implementation.

The editorial team will rely on the COPE Guidelines in each of the following cases:

Dealing with post-publication criticism

Post-publication discussions and revisions

Suspicion of post-publication peer review manipulation

Image manipulation in a published article

Fabrication of data in a published article

Post-publication discussions and changes to published articles

In some cases, it is necessary to make changes to an already published article. The Editorial Board of Economics of Science supports the practice of making changes to published materials and in case of such necessity acts in accordance with the COPE recommendations.

Any necessary changes are accompanied by a post-publication notification, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can be informed of any necessary changes.

What should authors do if they find an error in their article?

Authors may discover a technical or conceptual error already after the article has been published. In such a case, authors should notify the Editorial Board of Economics of Science as soon as possible, especially in the case of errors that may affect the interpretation of the results or cast doubt on the reliability of the information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching agreement within the author's team on further communication with the Editorial Board.

If you feel that a published article needs to be modified, please contact us via ecna@ranepa.ru