ETHICS IN PUBLICATIONS

The policy of ethical standards in the publication and malpractice statement of the scientific PNRPU journal  “Transport. Transport facilities. Ecology”.

1.     GENERAL TERMS

 1.1. This policy sets standards of ethical behaviour for the parties involved in the publication process: authors, editorial board, reviewer, and publisher. The following standards are based on generally accepted and existing policies of Journal and Publisher.

 1.2. Federal State Budgeted Education Institution for Higher Professional Education “Perm National Research Polytechnic University”, as the founder and editor of the scientific PNRPU journal “Transport. Transport facilities. Ecology”, assumes obligations to control all stages of the publication process of articles and recognizes its ethical and other obligations related to the publication of articles.

 2.     ETHICAL STANDARDS OF THE AUTHORS’ BEHAVIOUR

 2.1. Standard for accessing the source research data and their storage

The author is obliged to present the source materials (data) of the research at the request of the editorial board, if the article does not contain the original data, and must be prepared to provide public access to them. The author should keep these data during reasonable period of time after the publication to allow their reproduction and verification.

 2.2. Standard for originality (inadmissibility of plagiarism)

The author presents the article containing the results of original research to the editorial board for reviewing. If the author of the article uses or includes an article excerpts from others works (quotations), such uses must be properly marked by specifying the original source in the references to the article. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

 2.3. Standard for nonrecurrent publication

The author presents to the editorial board the manuscript which is to be unpublished, and not given to the editorial board of any other journal. The submission of a manuscript (or its translation) to several journals at the same time is considered to be unethical and unacceptable.

 2.4. Standard for sources confirmation

The author has to specify in the references the correct scientific and other sources that were used in the research and which have had a significant impact on the results of a research. The information obtained from informal (private) sources should not be used while working on a scientific article.

 2.5. Standard for manuscript authorships

All persons who have made significant contributions to the research should be listed as co-authors of the article. The list of the authors should contain only those persons’ names.

The author presenting the manuscript to the editorial board ensures that it mentions all co-authors, and they all have seen and approved the final manuscript and have agreed to its submission to the editorial board of the journal for publication.

 2.6. Conflict of interest policy

Authors must disclose possible sources of conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation and interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the article (grants, state programs, projects, etc.) should be disclosed and mentioned in the manuscript.

 2.7. Standard for error correction in the published literature

In the case the author discovers a substantial error or inaccuracy in the article already published, he/she has to notify the editorial board immediately and to help in correcting the error. If the editorial board or some third party discover an error in the article, the author is obliged to correct the error immediately or to provide the evidence of its absence.

 3.     ETHICAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EDITORIAL BOARD

 3.1. Standard for articles publication decision

The editorial board chooses the articles to be published based on the conformance to the requirements and the results of peer review. When making the decision on the manuscript publishing, editorial board is guided by the policy of ethical standards and does not permit the publication of articles containing libel, slander, plagiarism, copyright violations or conflict of interests. The final decision on publication of the article or to its rejection is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.

 3.2. Standard for equality of the authors

Editorial board evaluates submitted manuscripts regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship, occupation, affiliation and residence, as well as political, philosophical, religious or other views of the authors.

 3.3. Privacy standards

Editorial board is obliged not to disclose any information on the submitted manuscript to anyone except the author, the reviewer (in the case of single-blind review), and the publisher if necessary.

 3.4. Conflict of interests policy

Editorial board ensures that the rejected manuscripts will not be used in studies of the editorial staff members without the written agreement of the author. The Editorial board members must refuse to review manuscripts, if they have some competitive relationships with the author or an organization associated with the results of the study. Editor board demands all the participants of the publication to disclose their own competitive interests.

 3.5. Standard for the author unethical behaviour claims consideration

Every complaint to an author’s unethical behaviour is timely considered by the Editorial board regardless of the time of receipt. The Editorial board is obliged to take appropriate and reasonable actions to solve the problem. In the case the complaint has been approved by appropriate facts, the Editorial board can reject publication of the article, can cease further cooperation with the author, can publish a disclaimer, or prevent further unethical behaviour of the author by some other means.

 4.     ETHICAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO REVIEWERS

 4.1. Standard for reviewer influence on editorial decisions

Peer review of the manuscript provided has some influence on editorial decisions, and helps the author to improve the manuscript. The editorial board makes a decision on the publishing of the manuscript or returning it to author for improvement or rejecting it, based on results of peer review.

 4.2. Standard for reviewing deadlines

The reviewer has to provide a review in time specified by Editorial board. If the review of the manuscript is not possible within the time mentioned, the reviewer should notify the Editor.

 4.3. Standard for privacy by the reviewer

Manuscript submitted for review should be treated as a confidential document, regardless of the form of peer-review chosen by the journal. The reviewer may show it or discuss it with other persons only with the permission of the editor-in-chief.

 4.4. Standard for review objective

The reviewer has to carry out peer review of the manuscript fairly. Reviewer's personal criticism is not acceptable. Every reviewer’s conclusion should be strictly justified and supplied with references to authoritative sources.

 4.5. Standard for sources confirmation

Reviewers should indicate the sources that have influenced the results of the research, but were not mentioned by the author. The reviewer must pay attention to the substantial similarity or match between the considered manuscript and any other previously published works known to the reviewer.

 4.6. Conflict of interest policy

The reviewer must not use the materials of the unpublished manuscript for his/her own research without the written agreement of the author. The reviewer must refrain from reviewing the manuscript, in the case he/she has some conflicts of interests due to competitive, cooperative or other kinds of relationships with the authors or organizations related to the manuscript.