The editorial policy of the online scholarly peer-reviewed journal “Tractus Aevorum: The Evolution of Socio-cultural and Political Spaces” (“Tractus Aevorum”) includes mandatory compliance with the ethical standards given below by all the parties – Author(s), Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, Reviewers and Publisher – at all stages of the publication process.
The publishing ethics of the journal “Tractus Aevorum” is based on the rules developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (primarily on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors), as well as on the Elsevier recommendations. Also, the journal “Tractus Aevorum” is committed to Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications by the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (Russia).
1.1. Publication of articles in scholarly journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also a significant contribution to the development of a respective field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards of ethical behavior of all the parties involved in the publication of the journal “Tractus Aevorum,” namely: the Author(s), the Editors of the Journal, the Reviewers, the Publisher and the Scientific Community of the Journal.
1.2. Publisher has a supporting and investing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. All materials of the journal “Tractus Aevorum” are published and distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication Decisions
The Editor is personally and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted should be accepted and published, though s/he works in close cooperation with the Editorial Board. The validity of the manuscript in question and its scientific value must be the basis for the publication decision at all times. The editor may be guided by the policies of the scholarly journal “Tractus Aevorum” and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The Editor may check submissions for plagiarism with the help of the Antiplagiat (for submissions in Russian) or Crossref resources (by means of Similarity Check or other resources).
The Editor may confer with other Editors or Reviewers (or Society Officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors.
The Editor and the Editorial Board keep confidential all information about accepted manuscripts to anyone, except for authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific consultants and publishers.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
2.4.1. Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts can not be used for personal research without a written consent from the Author. Information or ideas obtained through the reviewing process and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and can not be used for obtaining a personal gain.
2.4.2. Editors should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, Companies, or Institutions connected to the papers, in which case Editors are to ask for help of Co-editors, Editorial Assistants or cooperate with the members of the Editorial Board rather than to review the manuscript in question by themselves and make a publishing decision.
2.5. Publication Supervision
The Editor who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions in the paper to be published are wrong should inform the Publisher (and/or Society) about making a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in research
The Editor along with the Publisher (or Society) is to respond adequately to ethical claims concerning the review of manuscripts or published materials. The measures that can be taken include contacting the Author(s) of the manuscript or publication and giving due consideration to the complaint or claim made, as well as contacting relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the Author may also assist the Author in improving the article. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Any selected Referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A Reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have professional knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished data obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and can not be used for personal research without a written consent from the Author. Information or ideas obtained through the reviewing process and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and can not be used for obtaining a personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, Companies, or Institutions connected to the submitted article.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Manuscript requirements
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and research articles should also be accurate and objective.
4.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with an article for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have submitted entirely original works, and if the Authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another article as the Author(s)’ own article, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another(s)’ article (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1 In general, an Author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an Author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The Authors and Editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as in the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at http://www.icmje.org/
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be given at all times. Authors should cite publications that have been influential for carrying out the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these confidential services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The Corresponding Author should ensure that all appropriate Co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all Co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
4.8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the Author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher
5.1. The Publisher should follow the principles and procedures to assure the observance of ethical rules by Editors, Reviewers and Authors in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must be committed to ensuring that potential advertising or reprint revenue has no influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The Publisher should extend support the Journal’s Editors when handling ethical complaints concerning a published article and facilitate communication with other journals and/or publishers if it can help the Editors perform their duties.
5.3. The Publisher should promote good practices for conducting research and implementing industry standards in order to improve the ethical guidelines, retraction and correction procedures.
5.4. The Publisher must provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.