Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Block I Illinois Library Illinois Open Publishing Network


Ethics Statement

ВИВЛIОθИКА's publication ethics policy adheres to the principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), as well as the practices and policies adopted by the Editorial Board.

1.General duties and responsibilities of editors

1.1.  Editors are accountable for everything published in ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies and on the journal's official website.

1.2.  Editors strive to meet the needs of readers and authors in the most effective way, by implementing the set of procedures to assure the high quality of published material, and by constantly improving every aspect of the journal;

1.3.  Editors champion freedom of expression;

1.4.  Editors maintain the integrity of the academic record;

1.5.  Editors preclude business and commercial needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;

1.6.  Editors publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

2. Relations with readers

2.1.  Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work.

2.2.  The information about the fields of journal activity, the editors and the plans, is published on journal’s official web site. The editors have to fix the changes in that information in due course.

3. Relations with authors

3.1.  The editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication is based solely on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.

3.2.  Editors should never reverse decisions to accept submissions unless problems are identified with the academic integrity of submission. Should any changes in persons of journal editors follow, the new editors have no right to overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified with the academic integrity of submission.

3.3.  Editors should ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely. A description of peer review processes is published at the journal’s official web site. The editors should be ready to justify and explain any important deviation from the described processes, should such a demand will be made by a particular author or reader. The editors are responsible to keep such description updated. The confidential issues of peer review should always be kept undisclosed, as stated in paragraph 4.3.

3.4.  A description of submission process, including the standards and demands for submitted papers, are published at the journal’s official web site. The editors are responsible to keep such description updated.

3.5.  Editors are not denied the ability to publish in their own journal. However, they must not exploit their position. A special procedure has to be implemented to make sure that the author-editor cannot influence the acceptance / rejection of a submission, whether consciously or unconsciously.

3.6.  Editors are responsible for support the communication with the authors, including the sending of response letters within due period of time. Also, editors should encourage the authors to share their views about the ways of improving the processes of journal.

3.7.  Editors have to respect the requests from the authors that an individual should not review their submission. The Editorial Board must be informed of that, and the author should receive a proper and timely response about whether his demand is satisfied or not.

3.8.  There are no article publication fees or processing charges.

3.9.  Authors of articles published in ВИВЛIОθИКА retain the copyright in accordance with the terms of the "Copyright Notice" listed on the Submissions page.

4. Relations with reviewers

4.1.  A description of peer review processes, including the obligation to handle submitted material (as well as the data about author and reviewer) in confidence, is published at the journal’s official web site. The editors are responsible to keep such description updated. Editors are responsible to take necessary measures to provide confidential status of the reviewed materials during the process of review.

4.2.  Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4.3.  Editors are responsible to keep the reviewers’ identities protected. Should any system or policy of an open review be used, a clear notification should be made both to authors and reviewers in advance.

4.4.  Editors should encourage reviewers to make comments on ethical questions in relation to the reviewed material (see also paragraph 7.3.).

4.5.  Editors are responsible to maintain the reviewer database permanently updated to make sure that the reviewers database reflects the academic community, and to monitor the results of reviewers. In case that certain reviewer is permanently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews, editor has the right to cease the use of such reviewer, and to inform the other editors and the Editorial Board of that.

5. Relations with Editorial Board members

5.1.  Editors should provide Editorial Board members fully and properly informed of all the current issues of journal’s functioning, both on particular members’ demand, and during the regular meetings of the Board.

5.2.  Editorial Board holds general meetings (in person and distantly) at least once a year, and discusses the questions of journal quality and development.

6. Quality assurance

6.1.  Editors should take all possible steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish. The basic demands for quality, along with the journal’s goals and policies, have to be formulated clearly and be available for broad audience on the official web-site of the journal. Since the particular sections within journal might have different aims and standards, authors and readers have to be informed of these in a proper way.

6.2.  Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

6.3.  There is a list of required elements of a submission available at official web-site of the journal. Editors are obliged to check the presence of all the necessary elements of submission. In order to maintain the quality of publications, the incomplete character of a submission may lead to rejection. The reviewers have the right to reject to review the incomplete submissions.

7. Encouraging ethical research and dealing with academic dishonesty

7.1. Editors should endeavor to ensure that research, the results of which they publish, was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines. If needed, editors should demand the official approvals of the ethical status of research from an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that even such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical, and cannot substitute the compliance with the relevant internationally accepted guidelines.

7.2. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of academic dishonesty is brought to them. This duty emerges after the receiving of a submission, regardless of whether it’s accepted or rejected.

7.3. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible academic dishonesty (including possible plagiarism, data fabrication, or authorship dispute). They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of academic dishonesty. Should the response be not satisfying, editor should to address to the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate public body (including a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to inform them of the case. All the process of pursuing of such issues should be kept confidential to avoid possible misinformation and reputational harm to the authors. Until the pursue is finalized, the editors do not have the right to do definite statements characterizing the suspected papers as academic dishonesty. However, editors have to inform the Editorial Board of the results of investigation and provide all the information gathered to the members of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board has to make the final decision jointly, up to making a public statement about the discovery of academic dishonesty facts, on the basis of actual legislation and legal norms.

8. Complaints and Appeals

8.1.  Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to appeal to the Editorial Board directly.

9. Conflicts of interest

9.1.  Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial Board members. Each action connected to the processes of submission, reviewing, and acceptance/rejection, should be checked for the possibility of a conflict of interest in the preventive way. Any unresolved conflict of interest should be reviewed by the special commission, which has to include the 2 representative of the Editorial Board who are not connected with the conflicting sides, and 3 independent persons not connected with the journal by any means.

9.2.  ВИВЛIОθИКА should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the Editorial Board to ensure unbiased review.

10. Changes to the Code of Ethics

10.1.  Changes to the existing Code of Ethics go into effect after the approval of such changes by the Editorial Board.