Ethical Standards Of Scientific Publications

Editorial Board of the scientific journal "Izvestiya of the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy” coordinates, within its activities, with international ethical rules of scientific publications, including the rules of integrity, confidentiality, supervision of publications, consideration of possible conflicts of interests, etc. In its activity, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), and also draws on some valuable experience of recognized international journals and publishers.

1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Reporting standards 

The Author must submit reliable results of the work performed, as well as objectively state the research significance. The research data should be clearly stated in writing. The paper should contain enough information for other researchers to be able to verify and reproduce the experiments. Fraudulently or inventively untruthful statements shall be considered acts of unethical behavior and are, thus, unacceptable.

1.2 Data access and storage

Authors may be asked to provide input data for the editorial review. They should be prepared to provide open access to such data, if possible, and in any case should be prepared to preserve the source materials within a year after their publication.

1.3 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should provide only original works. When using text or graphic information obtained from the works of other people, references to the relevant publications or the author's written permission are necessarily required. Any kind of plagiarism is regarded as unethical behavior and is, thus, unacceptable.

1.4 Multiple, repeated and competing publications 

Authors should indicate that their work is published for the first time. If any elements of the manuscript were previously published in another paper, the authors are obliged to refer to the earlier work and indicate a significant difference of the new work as compared with the previous one. Literal copying of one’s own works and their paraphrasing are unacceptable, they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions. Simultaneous submitting a paper to more than one journal is regarded as unethical behavior and is, thus, unacceptable.

1.5 Confirmation of sources 

Authors are obliged to recognize the contributions of other researchers who have formed a core part of the study. It is necessary to provide bibliographic references to the works used. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence or discussion with a third party should not be used without obtaining an open written permission from copyright holder.

1.6 The paper authorship  

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the claimed study. All those who have made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors. Those who participated in some significant aspects of the research project should be listed as the project participants. The Author must ensure that the names of all co-authors and participants of the project are included in the lists of co-authors and participants, and that all co-authors have got acquainted with the final version of the scientific work and approved of it, and also expressed their consent to its publication.

1.7 Disclosure and conflict of interest 

All Authors should disclose in their papers all information about any financial and other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the research results or their interpretation. All sources of the project financial support should be disclosed.

1.8 Significant errors in published works 

If an Author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published paper, he/she is obliged to immediately notify the Editor or Publisher of the Journal about this and help them in removing or correcting the error. If the Editor or Publisher learns from a third party that the published paper contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to immediately remove or correct them, or provide the Editorial Board with proof of the correctness of the original paper. 

2. Duties of the Editorial Board

2.1 Decision to publish a paper 

Submission of a paper for consideration implies that it contains new non-trivial scientific results obtained by the Authors, which have not been published before elsewhere. Each paper shall be reviewed. Reviewing takes place according to the "blind" scheme, when Reviewers know the Author, but the Author does not know his/her Reviewer. Experts have every opportunity to freely express their reasoned criticism regarding the level and clarity of the presentation of the submitted material, its relevance to the Journal's profile, novelty and reliability of the results. The recommendations of Reviewers form the basis for a final decision on the publication of the paper. The responsibility for the decision to publish shall rest entirely on the Editorial Board of the Journal. The Editorial Board decides on each publication as guided by the Journal policy with account of the current legislation in the field of copyright. The Editors evaluate the manuscripts solely by their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political views of the Authors. If accepted for publication, the paper is placed in the public domain; copyrights are reserved for Authors.

2.2 Confidentiality 

The Editor and all staff members of the Editorial Board have no right to disclose information about the submitted works to anyone other than the relevant Authors, Reviewers, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the Publisher. Editor and Editorial Board staff do not have the right to use unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript in their own research without a written consent of the Author.

2.3 Conflict of interest and resolution of ethical conflicts 

In the event of a conflict of interest as a result of competitive relations, cooperation or other relations and links with one of the Authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submitted manuscripts, the Editor submits the manuscript for consideration to another member of the Editorial Board. Editors should ask all the participants involved to disclose the existing competing interests. If competition of interests is revealed after the publication of the paper, the Editorial Board shall be obliged to ensure the publication of the amendments. When submitting an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or a published paper, the Editor must take reasonable responses in cooperation with the Publisher (or community). Every report on the fact of unethical behavior shall be considered, even if received years after the publication of the paper. If the complaint is supported, appropriate amendments, refutations or apologies shall be published. 

3. Responsibilities of reviewers

3.1 Contribution to editorial decisions 

Expert evaluation helps the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the cooperation of the Editor and the Author can help the Author in improving his/her work.

3.2 Efficiency 

Any reviewer selected to evaluate the works, who believes that his/her qualification is not enough to consider the research presented in the scientific work, or knows that the consideration mode will be too low, shall notify the Editor about this and refuse the review process.

3.3 Confidentiality 

Any manuscript submitted for peer-review must be treated as a confidential document. It is inadmissible to show it to other reviewers or to discuss with other experts without the prior permission of the Editor-in-Chief.

3.4 Standards of objectivity 

Reviews about scientific works should be unbiased. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and reasonably.

3.5 Confirmation of sources 

Reviewers should identify relevant published works in the peer-reviewed material that were not quoted by the Authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have already been used previously in any publications should be appropriately presented as quotations. The Reviewer is also obliged to pay the Editor's attention to substantial or partial similarity to any other work the Reviewer is directly familiar with.

3.6 Disclosure of Information and Conflict of Interest 

Unpublished materials used in the submitted manuscript shall not be used in the Reviewer's own research without a written consent of the Author. Closed information or ideas revealed in the course of the review shall remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers shall not participate in peer-reviewing and evaluation of the manuscripts they are personally interested in.