Stasis journal is committed to the highest ethical standards. All authors, reviewers, and editors are required to comply with the following ethical principles. In case of any doubts regarding the ethical guidelines, do not hesitate to contact the journal editors:

Stasis follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (based on COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers) to ensure publication ethics. 

As the publisher of Stasis Journal, European University at St Petersburg guarantees that all manuscripts are treated ethically on each stage of the publishing process and ensures that advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions. 

Ethical expectations

Editors’ responsibilities:

  • To acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within two working days and to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process.
  • To clearly identify manuscripts that are fully within the aims and scope of Stasis journal.
  • To treat all submissions fairly without any favor of prejudice regarding authors’ gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin.
  • To only authorize to review and publication original content of the highest quality (see Plagiarism Policy).
  • To guarantee that all mansucripts submitted are subject to double-blind peer review procedure.
  • To recuse himself or herself from processing any manuscript if he or she has any conflict of interest with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscripts.
  • To provide advice to the authors during the submission process when necessary.
  • To be transparent with regards to the review and publication process with appropriate care that individuals will not be identified when it is inappropriate to do so.
  • To not use any parts or data of the submitted manuscript for his or her own future research as the submitted manuscript is not published yet.
  • To respond immediately and take reasonable action when ethical problems occur concerning a submitted or a published manuscript.
  • The editors are willing to publish revisions, explanations, apologies and refutations when necessary.

Authors’ responsibilities:

  • To carefully read and follow Author Guidelines available on the Stasis website.
  • To claim that the submitted manuscript is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. To acknowledge and cite accordingly all content overlap with already published content.
  • To ensure that the submitted manuscript is original, prepared to a high scholarly standard and fully referenced using the prescribed referencing convention.
  • To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other published sources.
  • To clarify that all data used in the manuscript has been acquired following ethical research standards.
  • To accurately acknowledge funding sources and financial support related to the submitted manuscript.
  • To carefully read all the conditions included in the copyright agreement and to accept the copyright form during the submission process.
  • To declare any potential conflicts of interest (real or apparent) at any stage during the publication process.
  • To recognize that the Editorial Board of Stasis Journal has the final decision to publish the submitted, reviewed and accepted manuscript.
  • To immediately inform the editors whenever any obvious error in his or her published manuscript is identified.
  • To cooperate with the editors in retraction or correction of the manuscript if necessary.
  • Nota bene: Manuscript processing and publishing does not require any fees or charges from authors.

Reviewers’ responsibilities:

  • To immediately notify the editors whenever feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or sees difficulties to meet the deadline for completion of the review.
  • To agree to review a reasonable number of manuscripts at the same time.
  • To inform the editors if there is any possible conflict of interest related to the assigned manuscript. Specifically, to avoid reviewing any manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has an obvious personal or academic relationship.
  • To treat the manuscript in a confidential manner and to not use any parts or data of the reviewed manuscript for his or her own future research as the reviewing manuscript is not published yet.
  • To assist in improving the quality of the manuscript reading the manuscript with appropriate care and attention, reviewing the manuscript objectively and being constructively critical.
  • To immediately notify the editors of any similarities between the reviewing manuscript and another article either published or under consideration by another journal.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

Dealing with possible misconduct:

  • Editors have a duty to act if they suspect any misconduct or if a claim of misconduct has been reported by anyone. This duty applies to both published and unpublished article.
  • Editors should not simply reject an article that raises concerns about possible misconduct. Editors are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
  • Whoever informs the editors of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation.
  • Editors must take all allegations seriously and treat them in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
  • Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If the editors are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body to investigate.
  • Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted. If this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

Minor breaches:

  • Minor misconduct might be dealt without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches:

  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editors should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Retraction of an article if:

  • Editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct or honest error.
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. redundant publication). The journal that first published the article may issue a notice of redundant publication, but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.
  • The article constitutes plagiarism and reports unethical research.
  • The article should be retracted as soon as possible after the editors are convinced that the article is seriously flawed and misleading.

Outcomes of unethical behavior (in increasing order of severity):

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
  • Publication of a formal notice on the journal website detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial on the journal website (as well as in both electronic and printed issue) detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
  • Retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, as well as Abstracting & Indexing services.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual in the journal for a defined period.