Ethical principles of work with scientific publications

Рart I. General requirements

The editorial board of the journal " Proceedings of Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University":

  1. Adheres the policy of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
  2. Acts according to the principles of international laws of copyright (Responsible research publication: international standards for authors) and the current relevant legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of copyright;
  3. Accepts and works with the materials submitted by the author, on the basis of the Rules of cooperation with the editors and the PUBLIC OFFER AGREEMENT.

The Rules of cooperation with editors (responsibilities of parties) based on the положений CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL EDITORS are presented below. Before the manuscript submission process authors should carefully read the Rules of cooperation with the editors and obey them responsibly starting with the moment of manuscript submission. No one`s copyright rights should be violated during the collaboration process.

Part II The rules of cooperation with editors (responsibilities of parties)

    • 1.1. The editor-in-chief has personal responsibility for everything published in the journal: the contents and quality of the material.
    • 1.2. The editor-in-chief has personal responsibility for the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
    • 1.3. The editors are willing to meet the authors’ needs to improve the publications when making editing, corrections, clarifications, and changes, including possible retractions or changing the deadlines for the purpose of modification and updating the materials.
    • 1.4. The editors should publish the list of errata and corrections in subsequent issues.
    • 1.5. The editors provide appropriate resources and guidelines from publisher`s experts to provide the print quality (look Manuscript formatting guide).
    • 1.6. The editors put the information about source of researches funds and the funders` role in the research if such a role exists.
    • 1.7. The editors publish the dates of a manuscript submission and an article acceptance.
    • 1.8. The decision to accept an article should be based on the evaluation of the following parameters only: relevance, originality, importance, accuracy, clarity and the peer reviewer`s conclusion of obligation. The editors reserve the right to cooperate with single-discipline specialists if an objective evaluation is necessary.
    • 1.9. The editors should not use the information for the personal purposes or disclose the personal data (names, e-mails, etc.) and the content of a manuscript to third parties that are not involved in the immediate work process.
    • 1.10. The editors preserve single-blind peer review within 1 month from the moment of manuscript submission and provide the expert assessment by the uninterested, independent, qualified specialist in the field of research. Reviewers` identities are protected (for more inf. see Peer Review Section)
    • 1.11. The editors have developed and published the aspects of Peer Review processes for peer reviewers which everyone should be guided by.
    • 1.12. The editors should not overturn their decisions to publish an article unless serious problems are identified.
    • 1.13. Rejection of manuscripts must be validated and substantiated by editors, if needed.
    • 1.14. To maintain the integrity of the academic record the editors, guided by COPE flowcharts, refuse to publish an article in the following reasonable cases: plagiarism in all forms, partial duplication of own / others` articles previously published, submission of a manuscript to more than one magazine, duplication of other people's words without references, unauthentic or misleading authorship.
    • 1.15. The editors should actively encourage authors, readers, reviewers, editorial board members and publishers and also support their initiatives about ways of improving the journal`s processes by reassessing and revising actual policies and discourage misconduct.
    • 1.16. In the case of valid claims, problems or conflict situations, the Editorial board is obliged to take every care to ensure the protection of the aggrieved party and argue the position, to publicate correct version, make the apologizes to the authors, readers and the scientific community when needed.
    • 1.17. Providing reviewers and editors staff with tools to detect cited links in bibliography and related publications.

    Look more:

Responsible research publication: international standards for authors

      • 2.1. Authors should take collective responsibility for all information in their paper (facts, results, conclusions, theories, suppositions etc.) and comply with all relevant legislation. The published study should be conducted in accordance with the ethical and legal norms.
      • 2.2. Authors must confirm that the article data are authentic, objective and not fraudulent or fabricated.
      • 2.3. Authors must confirm that the article data are original and have not been published before or submitted elsewhere on the same time.
      • 2.4. Authors should not rephrase, overlap their / others’ works or quote any text without the references. All elements of Plagiarism are unacceptable. The authors must correctly indicate the primary sources references in the bibliography list.
      • 2.5. Researcher should present their results clearly and unambiguously so that findings can be confirmed by others.
      • 2.6. The authors and contributors should reflect significant individuals` contributions to the work ССЫЛКА↖.
      • 2.7. All authors, co-authors, and contributors should be listed in the appropriate field without any misconducts (e.g. ghost - , guest- and gift authors ).
      • 2.8. Authors must clearly identify the funding sources of the research.
      • 2.9. Authors should provide the information on the degree of their sponsor participation in the project, if so.
      • 2.10. New results should be presented in the context of the previous studies and primary sources, which should be accurately represented as citations and references.
      • 2.11. Authors should confirm absence of any relevant conflicts or disclose the conflicts of interests with the editorial board, sponsors, co-authors, publisher, etc., if such conflicts exist.
      • 2.12. Authors must provide a manuscript made according to Manuscript formatting guide.
      • 2.13. Authors should have contact with editors during the process of editing and making corrections.
      • 2.14. Authors can not make essential changes in the manuscript after acceptance without serious reasons.
      • 2.15. Authors can receive the review document, if they make the request to the editor board.
      • 2.16. Authors can withdraw the article even though it was accepted, but they must pay the outlay defined by the editors. The only exception is when the article had already been put to print.
      • 2.17. If people or animals are involved in the experiments, the authors must obtain appropriate approvals, licenses, and registrations before the study process starts, complying with the current legislation and regulations (British Educational Research Assoсiation ethical guidelines, in the case of clinical researches – WMA Declaration of Helsinky).
      • 2.18. Research sponsors should not have the right to veto the publication of results that are negative for their products or developments.

Look more:

Responsible research publication: international standards for authors
      • 3.1. Reviewers (Candidates and Doctors of Science) should make an expert evaluation. They can do this in accordance with the Peer review guidelines, which they can find in Peer Review Section.
      • 3.2. A specialist should refuse to make a review in the following cases: insufficient competence, inability to meet deadlines/conditions, in the case of any personal interests or any conflicts of interest with the authors, also due to other moral/ethical contradictions.
      • 3.3. A reviewer should have publications within the last 3 years in the field of knowledge of the article under review.
      • 3.4. A reviewer should make unbiased, objective judgment, and not any libelous or personal comments directed to the authors.
      • 3.5. Unpublished articles received by a reviewer are confidential; the reviewer should not disclose all information regarding the paper to third persons and use it to conduct personal business.
      • 3.6. A peer reviewer`s opinion and decision should be argued.
      • 3.7. A peer reviewer must be attentive to the bibliography data and identify redundant publications and relevant published papers, which have not been cited by author.

The peer reviewer must be alert to any fraud, plagiarism cases, substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other publications. If so, the Peer reviewer should record comments in the review and contact the Associate Editor.


Part III. Unconscionable practices and unethical behavior

  1. Fabrication / falsification of scientific results.
  2. Plagiarism of data, ideas or article fragments (compilation).
  3. Intentional selection or suppression of the results in a publication, when these results are relevant to the conclusions.
  4. False use of statistics or other methods.
  5. Intentional or careless negligence in concealing of methods` details.
  6. False informing about authorship (attributed honorary authorship, invisible authorship (lack of researchers indication in participation).
  7. False results presentation other researchers  (fictitious citations).Inadmissible repetition of a publication (self-plagiarism and duplicate publications).
  1. Improper handling of research facilities.
  2. Conspiracy to increase the quoting artificially.
  3. Agency services proposals: correspondence with the editorial office and updating of articles on behalf of an author.
  4. The transfer of articles by editors to other journals without the consent of authors.
  5. Transfer of the authors' materials by authors or reviewers to third parties.
  6. All possible manipulations with quoting (artificial increase in scientometric indices, excessive self-citation and friendly citation are interpreted as fraud).
  7. Fan-mailing the same article text to several scientific journals.
  8. All cases of digital images falsification and fabrication.


All these cases are regarded as behavior that does not correspond to ethical and scientific standards, and is interpreted as fraud.

Please, look Guidelines 2017.


The section is prepared on the basis of the International Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) materials, as well as the information on the web site of Elsevier publishing house.