Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Stasis is on the view that ethicas aspects of publication are an important part of the editorial work and of the reviewing process. Prevention of inappropriate activities, such as dissimulation, plagiarism, has been a responsibility of any author, editor, reviewer, publisher and institution that take part in a publication process.
Stasis follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to ensure ethics and quality in publication.
European University at St Petersburg as a publisher of “Stasis” takes its duties to guarantee serious approach to all stages of publishing and recognizes the responsibilities. Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.
Responsibilities of the Editor and the Editorial Board
The Editor makes a decision on publication of the submitted papers. It is guided by the journal’s policy and is based absolutely on the academic value and the conclusion of the reviewers. The Editor clings to the contemporary regulations regarding defamation, copyright violation and plagiarism. He is entitled to carry out decision-making in consultation with reviewers or members of the editorial board.
An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning the submitted manuscript or published paper.
An editor evaluates manuscripts without regard to previous merits, race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Editor and Editorial Board do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript (author(s), topic, text, etc.) to anyone other than the corresponding author, (potential) reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in any research of the editor, reviewers or any other informed person without the written consent of the authors. Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third party advantage. Editor and any member of the editorial board should release themselves from the duties of considering manuscripts in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts. Editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests. In case of revealing the competing interests after publication, the corrections should be published. A retraction or expression of concern may be published if needed.
Ensuring the integrity: involvement and cooperation
Stasis will respond to all claims or doubt of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or others. If concerns about the conduct or validity of academic work are raised, the Editorial Board with an involvement of relevant experts, as appropriate, will assess cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication. The editor will also ask the author(s) about responding to the affairs. Stasis will take this to the institutional level: the journal may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies, if that response is unsatisfactory.
In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence the scientific knowledge or practical applications, Stasis may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an “expression of concern”, and then publish explanations the findings of the investigation. Otherwise Stasis may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is persuaded that severe misconduct has happened. Retracted papers will be retained online, and conspicuously marked as a retraction for the readers’ benefit.
Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is an obligatory step in making editorial decisions and, if necessary, in improving the paper through the editorial communications with the author.
The reviewer, asked for peer review, who feels the shortage of qualification in the research reported in a manuscript or knows about the lack of time that makes his/her review impossible at the appointed time should notify the editor and relieve himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts and supplementary materials received for review must be processed as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with third parties except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should indicate relevant published papers that has not been discussed/cited by the author(s). Any assertion that an observation, conclusion, or suggestion had been previously reported should be supported by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform about any important similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third party advantage. Reviewers should release themselves from the duties of manuscripts consideration in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the author(s), companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts.
Editors will take reviewer’s misconduct seriously and investigate any evidence of confidentiality breach, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (both financial and non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of severe reviewer misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) will be taken to the institutional level.
Responsibilities of Authors
Authors reporting results 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable. Authors should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. The confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted manuscript:
- describes entirely original work;
- is not plagiarized;
- has not been published elsewhere in any language;
- indicates appropriate citation or quotation, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently creates unethical publishing conduct and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Authors will submit only entirely original works, and proper acknowledgment of other works must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
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 named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all contributing co-authors (according to the above definition) and no uninvolved co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
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.
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 notify the journal editor or publisher promptly and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Neither the editors nor the Editorial Board are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.
All manuscripts submitted for review and publication in Stasis go under double-blind reviews for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. Decisions of the reviewers are the only tool for publication in the journal and will be final.