Publication Authorship
Authorship must be based on the genuine contribution of each member of the author group. All authors must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the research and must agree with the presentation of the results and conclusions of the work.
Generally accepted authorship criteria include:
1) a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data;
2) drafting the first version of the article or substantially revising it for important intellectual content;
3) final approval of the version of the article to be published;
4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of every part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
These criteria are fundamental and must be considered individually for each study, taking account of its particular nature. They must not be used to manipulate or exclude a scholar who has made a substantial contribution to the research (for example, by meeting criterion 1 while being prevented from participating under criteria 2 and 3). The decision to include any person as an author must be made solely by the author group. Position, age, gender, race, or religious beliefs must not affect the determination of the article's authors. Organizational leaders, sponsors, and other persons must not influence decisions on inclusion in the authorship. Accordingly, authorship models must remain flexible for different types of research.
The order in which authors are listed must be decided solely by the author group. As a rule, that order is determined by each scholar's contribution to the research.
If agreement cannot be reached on who qualifies as an author or on the order of authors, the dispute must be resolved by the institution where the work was performed or by colleagues who have no conflict of interest with any of the co-authors. The journal editor must not participate in resolving this matter.
The sale of co-authorship, gift authorship, and ghost authorship violate not only ethical standards but may also constitute fraud. The Editorial Board promotes responsible authorship and therefore recommends providing information on each author's specific contribution to the content of the article.
The Editorial Board does not recommend using intermediary agencies, as the reputation of many such companies is inconsistent with the journal's ethical principles. Receipt of an article from such an agency requires the editor to contact each co-author and to repeat the editorial and publishing cycle in accordance with the journal's requirements, including requesting justification of authorship from every co-author.
Changes to the author list or to the order in which authors are named after submission of a manuscript are possible only upon receipt of a statement of consent to the requested change from all authors listed and from the author whose name is to be removed or added. The statement must contain a detailed and reasoned explanation of the changes.
With their consent, persons whose contribution to preparation of the manuscript is insufficient for authorship are named in the “Acknowledgements” section, together with their contribution to the work (for example, scholarly advice, data collection, administrative support, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, etc.).
Designation of a corresponding author is mandatory. The author corresponding with the Editorial Board must obtain permission from the other co-authors to submit the article and its accompanying materials. The corresponding author guarantees that all co-authors have reviewed the final version submitted to the Editorial Board for consideration and that all persons who made a substantial contribution to the research have been included as co-authors or acknowledged. The corresponding author informs co-authors of all changes and proposals from the journal's Editorial Board and does not make decisions concerning the article alone without the written consent of all co-authors. Authors must participate in the peer-review process, including responding to all reviewer comments, either agreeing with them or providing reasons for a view that differs from that of the reviewer. The Editorial Board may request additional information from the corresponding author and may also send requests to all co-authors at their stated email addresses.
Objectivity and Reliability
The author guarantees that the article and its accompanying materials are original and have not previously been published in Russian or in any other language. Republishing materials, including materials previously published in another language, is unacceptable without proper notice to the Editorial Board and provision of copies of those works. Duplicate publication of the same manuscript in different languages is unacceptable.
The author guarantees that the research has been conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards. The author guarantees that the research results have not been improperly influenced. Any potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to the journal's Editorial Board, and all sources of funding have been identified.
The research results are presented in the context of previous studies by other scholars. The review of prior research must be as complete and reliable as possible and must report information regardless of whether it supports the author's hypothesis.
The author guarantees that the article presents all data from the research, that is, the author avoids unjustified fragmentation of an article (salami slicing) for the purpose of increasing the number of published works. The manuscript contains sufficient data and bibliographic references to enable replication. Methods and protocols are described so that another researcher can reproduce them in their own research.
The author guarantees that the data and their interpretation presented in the article are complete and reliable. The article must contain no deliberate concealment of data that may affect the research results or falsification of data (including image manipulation). Knowingly false statements, selective or ambiguous presentation of facts, and deliberate selection of research methods to support a particular conclusion are unacceptable.
Authors must notify the Editorial Board of any errors identified in the research at every stage of publication, including after the work has been published.
Acknowledgement of Sources, Plagiarism, and Citation
Acknowledgement of the contribution of others is mandatory. Therefore, every item of material borrowed by an author from other works (text fragments, tables, figures, photographs, and the like) must identify its original source. Authors guarantee that the work submitted is entirely original; where they use the works, statements, or ideas of other authors, appropriate bibliographic references must be provided. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Any technical methods intended artificially to increase the apparent originality of a text are unacceptable and constitute a serious breach of ethical standards.
Authors must cite publications that are relevant to the work submitted, preferably citing the original source rather than review articles. When preparing a literature review, authors must assess the scholarly content of works rather than indicators of the publication activity of a journal or a particular author. All forms of citation manipulation are unacceptable.
It is unacceptable to use data obtained privately, through correspondence, conversation, or discussion, without the written permission of the original source. It is unacceptable to use data obtained from confidential sources without the written permission of the authors of the works.
Access to Data
The reproducibility of scholarly research is an integral part of its integrity, reliability, and value to the academic community. Authors are encouraged to deposit underlying data openly, that is, to provide access to complete experimental data sets so that the reported results can be reproduced. A data availability statement must provide detailed information on where data supporting the reported results can be found and include links to publicly accessible data repositories. Any ethical and legal restrictions must be clearly stated in the data availability statement at submission. If data are not openly available, they may be requested for submission to the Editorial Board or reviewers. Authors are encouraged to retain these data for an appropriate period after publication.
Ethical Principles for Reviewers
Responsibility
Peer review contributes to ensuring the objectivity of research, the reliability of its presentation in publication, and the development of scholarly knowledge as a whole. Reviewers must understand that they are part of the academic community and themselves rely on high-quality assessment of their work; they must therefore approach peer review responsibly and conscientiously.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is an important part of manuscript evaluation. A reviewer's opinion assists the Editor-in-Chief in deciding whether to publish. In turn, by taking account of reviewer comments, an author can substantially improve the quality of the work. Reviewers must provide accurate and professional information about their knowledge and experience. Insufficient qualification in any issue addressed by a manuscript is a reason to decline review. If a reviewer can assess only a particular part of a manuscript, the reviewer must clearly describe the limits of their expertise in that area.
Timeliness
Reviewers must respond promptly to an invitation to review, especially when declining it. A reviewer must prepare the review within the proposed or mutually agreed period and inform the editor if additional time is needed. Reviewers must observe ethical requirements for peer review and follow the journal's peer-review policy. If a reviewer disagrees with the journal's peer-review policy (for example, with the type of review used), this is a reason to decline review.
Confidentiality
Peer review is confidential. Reviewers are advised that manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and contain information not subject to disclosure. Manuscripts may not be shown to or discussed with any persons other than those authorized by the Editorial Board. It is unethical to agree to review a manuscript without intending to prepare a review, merely to become acquainted with its content.
Standards of Objectivity
Expert opinion must be objective, specific, and based on the quality of the work itself. Reviewers must express their views clearly and support them with appropriate arguments. A review must contain constructive comments that help authors improve their work. Reviewers must identify additional works that could broaden the research but were not considered by the author. Unfounded recommendations to include references to the reviewer's own work, or that of colleagues, in order to increase citations are unacceptable. Personal criticism of author(s) and unsubstantiated accusations are unacceptable. Personal, financial, and other circumstances, as well as intellectual bias, must not influence the review. Race, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs, and other convictions must not affect a reviewer's decision.
Misconduct
Every statement published previously must include a reference to its original source. The Editorial Board expects original sources to be identified not only for direct quotations but also for other forms of incorporating material from other studies into a work. Reviewers must draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers must immediately notify the editor if they discover improper borrowing, including self-plagiarism, errors in the work, signs of data falsification, or other facts indicating dishonest or unethical conduct by the research authors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must declare all possible conflicts of interest, including personal, professional, financial, and other relationships or interests; competitive relationships with a research author; participation in a joint research project; or academic supervision. They must consult the editor if unsure whether a particular situation constitutes a conflict of interest. Reviewers must contact the editor if, after preparing their review, they learn facts that may indicate a possible conflict of interest and may affect their initial opinion and recommendations.
It is unacceptable to use unpublished data obtained from a manuscript submitted for review in personal research without the author's written consent. Information or ideas obtained during peer review that relate to possible competitive advantages must remain confidential and may not be used for personal gain.
Ethical Principles for Editors and Editorial Boards
Publication Decisions
The journal editor is responsible for deciding whether to publish articles submitted to the journal at every stage of the editorial and publishing cycle, including after publication. In making a decision, the editor is guided by the editorial policy of the journal “Law: History and Modernity” and by ethical standards and applicable legal requirements. The editor makes the final publication decision after considering the views of the Editorial Board and reviewers. The decision to publish must be based on the significance, originality, and thematic relevance of the article to the journal. Works reporting only negative research results, as well as works challenging previous research published in the journal, may also be submitted for publication. Race, gender, citizenship, religious beliefs, and other convictions must not affect the editor's decision.
Integrity and Openness
The editor must uphold high standards of honesty and integrity in scholarly publishing. The editor must improve the publication's ethics policy, including by taking account of updated cases and standards of international organizations.
The editor must seek to ensure a fair and proper peer-review process, including effective selection of reviewers for articles and respect for authors' requests that a particular person should not review their work for stated reasons. The peer-review procedure must be clear and transparent and must be regularly refined to improve the quality of review in the journal.
The editor must ensure publication of comprehensive requirements for article authors, including a transparent assessment procedure specifying the timeframes of the editorial cycle and possible reasons for rejecting manuscripts.
The editor must facilitate the fullest possible disclosure to readers about the research published, including potential conflicts of interest, funding, and other information that may affect readers' ultimate conclusions about the research.
The editor must not take improper actions to influence the journal's ranking by artificially increasing its indicators.
Responsibility and Oversight
Financial, personal, and other interests must not affect a publication decision. Where a potential conflict of interest exists, the editor must exclude themselves from all forms of participation in the examination and evaluation of the manuscript.
The editor must ensure that policies exist and are regularly reviewed for resolving editorial conflicts of interest and for responding to misconduct by authors, reviewers, and other persons involved in publication.
When errors in articles or facts of unethical conduct by authors or reviewers are identified, the editor must take appropriate action, including publishing an amendment to the article, an expression of concern, a correction, an apology, a retraction notice, or retracting the article. In these actions, the editor must be guided by the rules of COPE and the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers' Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications. Information on retraction of an article must be communicated to the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications and to indexing databases of scholarly information.
Confidentiality
The editor and Editorial Board of the journal “Law: History and Modernity” must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author group, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher. Unpublished data, ideas, and other information obtained from submitted manuscripts and related to possible advantages may not be used in personal research or for other personal purposes without the author's written consent.
The editor must preserve, and create all conditions necessary to preserve, the anonymity of reviewers.
Interaction
The editor oversees the work and interaction of all participants in the editorial and publishing cycle and cooperation with the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers' Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications, indexing databases of scholarly information, other publications, and organizations in order to comply with ethical requirements and strengthen the integrity of scholarly publications in the journal “Law: History and Modernity”.
Where misconduct by authors, reviewers, or other persons involved in publication is suspected, the editor must ensure that an investigation is conducted.
The editor must ensure adoption and publication of a transparent procedure for interaction among authors, the editor, the Editorial Board, and reviewers at every stage of the publication cycle.
The editor must ensure meetings of the Editorial Board and consultations with its members, including informing them of their functions, duties, and responsibilities.
The editor must exchange information regularly with the publisher and work jointly to protect copyright. In interactions with the publisher, the editor must uphold the principle of editorial independence.
Ethical Principles for Publishers
The publisher must comply with international standards of scholarly publication ethics and follow principles that support editors and Editorial Boards, authors, and reviewers in fulfilling their ethical duties.
The publisher must follow the principle of editorial independence and create conditions for its implementation. Financial, personal, and other interests must not affect decisions made by the publisher or relationships with the journal editor, authors, and other participants in the publication process.
The publisher must respect the right to confidentiality and privacy of personal information of authors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process.
The publisher must promote the protection of intellectual property and copyright.
The publisher must promote the integrity and transparency of every published article, including with respect to conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, and publication and research ethics.
Where a possible breach of scholarly publication ethics is alleged, the publisher must work closely with the Editorial Board and take all necessary measures to clarify the situation.
The publisher must support the journal editor in considering claims arising from ethical issues and help the editor interact with other participants in the publication process, other journals, and/or publishers where this assists the editor in properly fulfilling their duties.
The publisher must assist parties responsible for investigating cases of research and publication misconduct and facilitate resolution of such matters within its authority.
Where necessary, the publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support, including legal opinions or advice.
The publisher must ensure the timely release of journal issues and, where necessary, the publication of amendments to an article, expressions of concern, corrections, apologies, retraction notices, or the retraction of unethical articles.