Publication Ethics

The editorial board, editor-in-chief, publishing house and authors of the scientific journal "Siberian Legal Review" strive to improve the quality of published articles and take all reasonable measures to prevent violations, while being guided by the ethical standards, norms and rules contained in the recommendations of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, Code of Ethics for Scientific Publishing), the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers "Ethical Principles for Scientific Publishing", take into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers (Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement by Elsevier). In order to improve the quality of published materials, all submitted works (scientific articles, messages, reviews, etc.) are reviewed and checked by the “Antiplagiat” system. 

In authorship ethics

1. Originality.

No author shall submit a paper that has already been published or submitted for publication as essentially the same content to another publisher.

2. No plagiarism.

Any text or verbal pronouncement by an extraneous author must be properly referenced, with the help of a list of references or otherwise, in accordance with the publication rules followed by The Scientific Journal “Siberian Law Review”. Compiling or paraphrasing texts or verbal pronouncements by extraneous authors without making appropriate references is inadmissible.

3. Fair authorship.

An article’s list of authors must consist only of the names of researchers who contributed to the article. No researcher who made a significant contribution shall be crossed out of the list. Any change to the list, including crossing out, is subject to approval by every author in the list to be changed.

4. Confirmation of sources.

No entry in an article’s list of references shall contain any uncertainty or ambiguity concerning bibliographic or other details of its cited source. No reference made in the main body of an article shall come without its entry in the list of references. No article shall contain information or data obtained from private sources such as private correspondence or private verbal communication.

5. Honesty about conflict of interest in reviewing.

To make for impartiality in evaluating a submitted article, its author(s) must notify The Scientific Journal of possible conflicts of interest in the evaluation process.

6. Readiness to acknowledge error in published material.

Having discovered an error or gaffe in any of his (her) already published articles, an author shall immediately notify The Scientific Journal of this and help it deal with the mishap. In case a person other than author discovers an error or gaffe in a published article and informs The Scientific Journal of this, the article’s author(s) must either supply The Scientific Journal with convincing evidence that his (her, their) original version is right, correct the discovered error or gaffe or formally disavow the article.

In reviewing ethics

1. Independence and impartiality.

Reviewing of submitted papers must be honest, impartial, unprejudiced and uninfluenced by any personal attitudes, likes or dislikes. Having discovered a conflict of interest in himself (herself) in connection with a paper forwarded to him (her) for reviewing, a reviewer must step down as such in everything that concerns this paper.

2. Confidentiality.

A paper forwarded for reviewing must be treated by the reviewer as confidential material. No part of the paper or the paper as a whole shall be used by the reviewer for any purpose without the consent of the author(s). The content of the paper is no matter for discussion with anybody outside The Scientific Journal.

3. Competence.

In case a reviewer finds that a paper forwarded to him (her) for reviewing is outside his (her) scope, he (she) must immediately inform The Scientific Journal of this and decline its request to review this paper.

4. Fairness in not forwarding material to reviewers.

The Scientific Journal reserves the right not to forward a submitted paper to reviewers, but only for invoking in instances when this paper does not meet formal requirements, defies fair authorship rules or fails to pass an anti-plagiarism check.

5. Compliance with rules of reviewing.

Reviewing of submitted papers must be carried out in strict compliance with the rules of reviewing adopted by The Scientific Journal.

In editing ethics

1. Openness concerning rules.

The wordings of The Scientific Journal’s requirements to submitted papers must be freely available to potential authors on the Internet. The Scientific Journal shall not require anything that goes beyond these avowed requirements.

2. Openness and promptness in exchanges with authors and reviewers.

The Scientific Journal expeditiously answers all questions it receives from authors and reviewers. It is always forthcoming to explain whatever is necessary concerning its work and that of its reviewers. It also reserves the right to seek clarifications from the author(s) and the reviewers of a submitted paper.

3. Avoidance of conflict of interest.

No editor shall take any decision concerning a submitted paper unless he (she) is in good faith about the absence of conflict of interest in him (her) in connection with this paper.

4. No change that is hidden from author.

The author(s) of a paper to be published shall not be kept in the dark as to any change, semantic or concerning content, that has been introduced to his (her, their) paper by The Scientific Journal’s editors in the course of pre-publication preparation work.

In publisher’s ethics

1. Equal treatment of all submitted papers.

In its selection policy, The Scientific Journal guarantees equal treatment of all submitted papers regardless of nationality, ethnicity, faith, occupation or position of their authors. No commercial interest shall be allowed to influence decisions taken by The Scientific Journal. The Scientific Journal’s publishing policy rests on respect of author’s rights, including copyright and other intellectual property rights.

2. Unbiased evaluation of submitted material.

In its work to evaluate submitted material The Scientific Journal is guided by the criteria of importance, scientific value, topicality, veracity, originality, comprehensiveness, literary quality and compliance with The Scientific Journal’s technical requirements to submitted papers.

3. High quality of reviewing.

The Scientific Journal guarantees that each and every submitted paper will be reviewed by highly competent and properly qualified experts in law and other relevant fields.

4. Openness about research funding.

The Scientific Journal is committed to full disclosure of information about funds and sponsors behind a published research article.