Ekonomicheskaya Politika [Economic Policy (in Russian)] and its Publisher Autonomous Non-commercial Organization "Editorial Board of the Journal Economic Policy" are committed to the highest ethical standards and take all possible measures to make sure these standards are upheld in our publication practices.
We believe that the publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journals.
Ours is a peer reviewed learned journal that serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. Consequently we are committed to standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journals.
Our journal programs record the minutes of Science and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those minutes in all our policies,not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
We expect the same from prospective authors and reserve the right to reject any submissions found to be in violation of the standards laid out below (see Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior).
1. Duties of Editors
1.1. Publication decision
The editor of Ekonomicheskaya Politika is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the professional society. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
1.2. Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff of the journal must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
1.4. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Editors should refrain themselves (i.e., should ask a coeditor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
1.5. Vigilance over published record
An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
1.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies (see Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior).
2. Duties of Reviewers
2.1. Standard and objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
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.
2.4. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had 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 paper of which they have personal knowledge.
2.5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
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 papers.
3. Duties of Authors
3.1. Reporting standards
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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.
3.2. Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
3.3. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
3.4. Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of 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, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
3.5. Authorship of the paper
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.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors and no inappropriate coauthors are included on the paper, and that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
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. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
3.7. Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learn 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.
4. Duties of the Publisher
4.1. The Publisher Autonomous Non-commercial Organization "Editorial Board of the Journal Economic Policy" should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Ekonomicheskaya Politika in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
4.2. The publisher should support journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help with communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
4.3. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
4.4. The publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior
1. Identification of unethical behavior
1.1. Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
1.2. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined in Publication ethics.
1.3. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
2.1. An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
2.2. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
3. Minor breaches
3.1. Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
4. Serious breaches
4.1. Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consulting with a limited number of experts.
5. Outcomes (In increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
5.1. Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
5.2. A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and warning as to future behavior.
5.3. Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
5.4. Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
5.5. A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
5.6. Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, abstracting & indexing services and the readership of the publication.
5.7. Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
5.8. Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.