Ethics & Policies





Code of ethics of scientific publications of the electronic edition "Corporate governance and innovative economic development of the North" is designed to meet international standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This document is required to be executed and consolidates and reveals the general principles and rules that should govern the relations of the participants in the process of scientific publications: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.

International standards relate to the following issues:

  • agreements with the authors that do not allow funding foundations and sponsors to impose a ban on the publication of discoveries unfavorable to their products or provisions
  • ensuring the procedures of dividing commercial and publishing activities of the journal, so that sponsored articles are controlled in the same strict way and are subject to independent evaluation, as well as all other publications;
  • authors’ complying the restriction on disclosure of the information contained in their articles accepted for publication but not yet published, and ensuring the fact that press releases accurately reflect the content of their work and do not include statements that go beyond the discoveries made in studies;
  • editors’ serious attention to the possibility of any violations of the personal data and privacy protection and ensuring that all studies are conducted according to national and international laws and principles of good practice.


Scientific publication ethics is a system of standards of professional conduct in relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creation, dissemination and use of scientific publications. 

Editor is a representative of the scientific journal or publisher, providing preparation of the materials for publication, as well as maintaining communication with authors and readers of scientific publications. 

Author is a person or a group of people (group of authors) involved in publishing the results of a scientific research. 

Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific expertise of copyright material to determine the feasibility of the publication. 

Publisher is legal or natural person, that releases a scientific publication. 

Reader is any person that familiarizes with the published materials.



Editorial principles 

  1. Responsibility for the contents of the journal

Editors are responsible for all materials published by them and for applying the policies and procedures ensuring the quality and accuracy of the published materials. 

  1. Editorial independence and integrity

An important part of the responsibility for making fair and objective decisions is the principle of editorial independence and integrity. 

2.1 Independence of the decision-making of commercial considerations 

Editors make decisions only on the basis of the scientific quality of the articles and take full responsibility for their decisions. Accepted procedures should separate commercial activity within the journal from the editorial processes and decisions. Editors should take active interest in politics of publishers’ pricing and fight for wide availability of the published materials. Sponsored amendments should be subject to the same strict quality control and review, as well as any other material in the journal. Decisions concerning these materials must be made in the same way as decisions on any other materials of the journal. The readers must be informed about the fact of sponsorship and its role in an understandable way. Advertisements must comply with the policy of the journal, be clearly distinguishable from other content and should not have any connection with the scientific content of the journal. 

2.2 The relations of editors with the publishers or owners of the journal 

Ideally, editors must have a signed contract containing the terms of their appointment by the publisher of the journal or the owner. This contract must clearly state the principle of editorial independence. The journal publishers and owners should not take any part in decisions concerning its contents for commercial or political reasons. The publishers cannot fire the editor for any reason related to the contents of the journal, except for the cases of gross editorial negligence, or if an independent investigation shows that the decision of the editor on publishing the material was taken despite the scientific mission of the journal. 

2.3 Rating and decision-making of the journal 

Editors do not attempt to improperly influence the rating of the journal by artificial increasing of any indicators of the journal. For example, the requirement of adding references to the articles published in the journal is inappropriate, because such references should appear only on the basis of purely scientific considerations. In general, editors should ensure that reviewing of the materials was held only on scientific grounds, as well as the authors were free from the pressure to cite certain publications for unscientific reasons. 

  1. Editorial privacy

3.1 Authors’ material 

If the journal uses the system whereby independent reviewers are selected by the editors, the editors ensure the confidentiality of the authors’ material and inform the reviewers about the need to preserve such confidentiality. As a rule, the editors do not share the articles with the editors of other journals, except having the authors’ consent or alleged misconduct. 

Editors are generally not required to provide litigation lawyers with materials. Editors do not report the status of the material to anybody in the journal, other than the authors. The system of application for publication via the Internet should work so that unauthorized access has been prevented. 

When investigating the cases of misconduct disclosure of the material to third parties may be needed (for example, to the supervisory board of the institution or other editors). 

3.2 Reviewers 

Editors must preserve the confidentiality of the reviewers’ personal data except when the independent review system is open. However, if the reviewers are willing to disclose their names, they should be allowed to do that. 

In the case of alleged misconduct of the reviewer disclosure of their name to the third party may be necessary. 

General editorial policy 

  1. Encouraging maximum transparency, completeness and integrity of publications

To improve scientific knowledge, it is important to understand why that or other scientific work was done, how and by whom it was planned and carried out, and what it adds to the already existing knowledge. To achieve this understanding maximum transparency and full and fair presentation of research papers are critical. 

4.1 Authorship and responsibility 

The journal has a clearly stated policy on authorship, meeting international standards. They provide the guidance to authors, containing requirements, and there are different approaches to the definition of authorship, they state which of them they adhere. 

In a multidisciplinary or collaborative study it should be clear to the readers who did what and who is responsible for the implementation and accuracy of a particular aspect of the study. In each piece of work there must be at least one author who is responsible for its accuracy. It is expected that all the authors contribute significantly to the material and are familiar with all of its content. Ideally, it should be indicated in the statement of authorship, presented to the journal. When the list of the authors is changed for without causing objections from any of the authors, editors should require that all authors (including those whose names are excluded from the list of authors) expressed their approval in writing. Disputes over authorship for both published and unpublished works (i.e., disagreements arising before or after publication about who should or should not be the author) cannot be resolved by the editors and are considered in research institutions or other relevant independent bodies. In such cases, editors act in accordance with the results of conflict resolution, for example, by correcting the authorship in the published papers. 

The journals should publicly state the policy on the conflicts of editors’ interests, written by the editors or members of the editorial board, on how the articles are processed. 

4.2. Conflicts of interests and the role of the funding source 

Editors should have the policy requiring that all authors declared any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interests and mentioned, at least those that could affect the perception of the content by the reader, in the article. 

It is necessary to state the source of funding of the research and publish it. The role of the source of financing in the formation of the concept of the work, its conduct, data analysis and preparation of publication are also specified and published. Editors must clearly inform authors if their work cannot be published in certain sections of the journal due to possible conflicts of interests (e.g., articles or reviews written by request). 

4.3 Full and fair provision of data and compliance with the rules providing data 

One of the most important duties of the editors is to maintain a high standard in the scientific literature. Although standards in various journals have differences, editors ensure that all the published works made a new significant contribution in their scientific field. Editors prevent the emergence of so-called "salami publishing" (i.e., publications of some small fragments of the study), they avoid duplicative or redundant publications, except when it is specified and acceptable to all (for example, publications in various languages with cross references) and encourage authors to present their works in the context of previous works (i.e., explain why this work was needed/done, what contribution is made by this work, or why it is necessary to duplicate the previous work and what readers should get of it). 

Journals use the policy that encourages full and fair presentation of the material, for example, by requiring to provide reports or research plans in the areas where it is customary, as well as, to provide the proof that when writing the article certain guiding principles were complied with. Although these guidelines were developed to improve the quality of scientific articles, compliance also helps editors, reviewers and readers to assess the actual conduct of the study better. 

Digital image files, numbers and tables must comply with the relevant standards in a particular area. Images must not be improperly altered from the original version, or to report the results in the misleading way. 

Editors may also carry out checks for image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicating or redundant publication using the appropriate software. In the case of plagiarism or fraudulent manipulation with the image, the problem should be considered in connection with the authors and with the relevant agencies. 

  1. Reaction to criticism and problems

Reaction to the published study by other researchers is an important part of scientific debate in most areas and, as a rule, should be encouraged. In some areas, journalists can "amplify" such a debate by publishing readers’ feedback. Criticism may be part of general scientific debate, but it can also draw attention to the lack of integrity of research or publication. 

5.1 Ensuring reliability of the published data - amendment 

When readers, authors or editors find indisputable errors in the published work, that do not make the work invalid, it is required to amend (or correct typos) as soon as possible. The online version of the material can be corrected with the date of correction and the reference to the list of errata printed. If an error makes the work or its substantial part invalid, the article should be withdrawn, indicating the reason (such as a bona fide error). 

5.2 Ensuring reliability of published data - suspicion of misconduct during the study or publication 

If readers, reviewers, or others raise the question of the conduct, accuracy or publication of a scientific work, editors, primarily connect with the authors (ideally with all authors) and give them an opportunity to respond to the allegations. If their response is unsatisfactory, the editors refer the case to the research institution. Following the investigation, editors are requested to take appropriate measures, accompanied by the commentary explaining the results of the investigation. Editors also need to respond to the data received from the organizations to protect the integrity of national researches that indicate misconduct in relation to the materials published in their journal. Editors can independently decide to withdraw the material if they believe that misconduct has occurred, even if the investigation agency or national authority does not recommend this. 

Editors must respond to all statements or suspicion of misconduct emanating from readers, reviewers or other editors. 

Editors are often the first to receive information about such problems and are to act even if the material has not yet been accepted for publication or it has not been yet denied in its publication. 

In addition to special responsibility for publication in their journal, the editors have a collective responsibility for the published scientific knowledge and should act in any known to them case of potential misconduct. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicative/redundant publication can be evaluated by editors independently. However, in most other cases, the editors ask for an investigation by the agency or other relevant bodies (after receiving clarification from the authors, if such an explanation was not satisfactory). 

  1. Ensuring fair and proper process of independent reviewing

One of the most important responsibilities of editors is the organization and the use of an independent review in an honest and prudent manner. Editors describe the adopted procedures of an independent review in the information materials for authors, also indicating which parts of the journal are subjected to the review. 

6.1 The decision to carry out a review 

Editors may reject material without an independent review, if it is found to be of poor quality or inappropriate for the readers. This decision is made fairly and impartially. The criteria for such a decision should be clearly defined. The decision not to send the material to an independent review can be based only on the scientific content of the material and cannot depend on the identity of the authors or their place of work. 

6.2 Interaction with independent reviewers 

For the materials considered for publication editors use the services of independent reviewers by selecting individuals who have sufficient experience and have no conflicts of interests. Editors ensure getting the reviews on time. 

Independent reviewers are reported what is required of them, and are also provided with the information on any changes in editorial policy. In particular, the independent reviewers need to present an estimate of the research and issues of the publication ethics (i.e., whether, the study was conducted ethically, in their opinion, if they have any suspicion of plagiarism, forgery, falsification or redundant publication). Editors should formally request the independent reviewers of the conflict of interests on their part and demand from independent reviewers promptly inform them of any such conflict of interests for them to decide whether the review is objective. Certain conflicts of interests may result in disqualification of the independent reviewer. 

Editors should require confidentiality of the materials provided to independent reviewers, and also require that independent reviewers informed them if they turn to the help of colleagues or act as mentors to younger colleagues when reviewing. Ideally, the editors should have a mechanism to control the quality and timeliness of reviews and a feedback mechanism with the reviewers. 

6.3 Misconduct of the reviewer 

Editors must take seriously the misconduct of the reviewer and consider any statement of a breach of confidentiality, non-disclosure of conflicts of interests (financial and nonfinancial), misuse of confidential material or delays in the independent review in the interests of competitors. In case of serious violations of the reviewer, such as plagiarism, the editor should report them to the institution in which they work (further guidance is available here: 

6.4 Interaction with authors 

Editors should explain to the authors, that the role of the independent reviewer may vary depending on the journal. Some editors consider the reviewers as consultants and may refrain from compliance (or even request) with their recommendations for acceptance or rejection of the publication. Editors’ correspondence is usually conducted with the responsible author who ensures participation of the co-authors at all stages. Communication with all the authors at the stages of presenting the material and its final adoption may be useful to ensure that all the authors are well-informed and approve the publication. As a rule, the editors make a decision on the basis of all the comments of independent reviewers in general. However, exceptional cases may require removing parts of the review, if it is, for example, contains defamatory or offensive statements. It is important, however, that such editorial analysis did not aim at "suppression" of uncomfortable comments. 

If at a later stage of the process search of additional reviewers is carried out, it should always be a reasonable cause, clearly reported to the authors. The final editorial decision and the reasons for its issuance are clearly communicated to the authors and reviewers. If the material is rejected, editors, ideally, should consider the objections of authors according to the adopted procedure. In this case, the editors do not have to revoke their decision. 

  1. Editorial decisions

Editors occupy influential position while making decisions on the acceptance or rejection of publications. This makes special demands on the integrity and objectivity of the process and its relevance to the scientific vision of a particular journal. 

7.1 Analysis of materials by editors and the journal 

All editorial processes should be described in the information materials for the authors. In particular, they should give the requirements for authors, types of published materials as well as processing the materials by the journal. All editors should be familiar with the policy of the journal, its point of view and theme. The ultimate responsibility for all decisions is borne by the chief editor. 

7.2 Editor’s conflicts of interest 

Editors should not make decisions on the materials in connection with which they have a conflict of interests, for example, if they work or have worked in the same institution and cooperated with the authors, if they are shareholders of a particular company or have personal relationships with the authors. Journals should have a certain procedure for processing these materials, as well as a procedure for processing the materials submitted by the editors or editorial board members, to provide objective and independent review of such materials. This procedure is described in the information materials for the authors. Conflicts of interests must be announced publicly. 

  2. Basic principles to be followed by the reviewers

Reviewers should: 

  • agree to review only those manuscripts to assess which they have sufficient knowledge, and if they can review in time, respect the confidentiality and not disclose any details of the manuscript before or after reviewing to anyone except those who are allowed by the journal
  • not use the information obtained in the course of the review, for their own benefit or the benefit of other people or organizations, or to cause harm to others or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicts of interests and to seek for advice from the journal, if they are not sure whether the current situation is a conflict of interests or not, not allow the origin, nationality, religion, political or other views of the authors of the manuscript or commercial considerations influence the content of their review
  • write a review objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements, as well as slanderous or derogatory comments
  • understand that being researchers, they need fair reviews from their colleagues, and so fulfill conscientious reviewing
  • provide journals with accurate and honest information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience, realize that the attempts to impersonation during the review are a serious breach
  1. What a review process should be like

During preparation for the review 

Reviewers should: 

  • respond to the offer to write a review promptly enough, especially if they are not going to write it;
  • if they are not well aware of the subject of the study for writing the review, declare this; and if they can assess just a part of the manuscript, describe the boundary area in which they have sufficient knowledge;
  • agree to review the manuscript only if they are sure that they can prepare the review in the proposed or jointly agreed period of time, promptly notifying the journal if they need prolongation;
  • declare all potential conflicts of interests (such as those connected with personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious interests) and seek for advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation is a conflict of interests or not;
  • follow the policy of the journal in situations that, in their opinion, may interfere with the objective reviewing. Unless otherwise is specified in the rules, they should notify the journal if they work in the same organization as one of the authors (or soon will work in this organization or apply for employment in the organization), and if they are or have been in the recent past (for example, during the last 3 years) teachers of some of the authors, their students, close associates or joint grant users, or they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors;
  • re-review any manuscript that they have already reviewed for another magazine, as during the text could change for this time, and the criteria for the publication of articles in journals may be different;
  • ensure that the proposals to alternative reviewers are made impartially, and are not the result of personal preferences or to make the manuscript receive some definite evaluation (positive or negative);
  • not agree for reviewing the manuscript only to read it, without the intent to prepare the review;
  • refuse to prepare the review, if they feel they cannot make an impartial and fair assessment;
  • refuse to prepare the review, if they have been involved in any work related to the preparation of the manuscript, or in the studies described therein;
  • refuse to prepare the review, if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to the one being reviewed for another journal or the one which has been offered for reviewing;
  • refuse to prepare the review, if they do not agree with the rules of reviewing adopted in the journal because they can affect either the review or its value for the reason that they cannot effectively fulfill the requirements of the journal.
  1. While reviewing

Reviewers should: 

  • immediately notify the journal and seek for its advice if they detect any conflict of interests that had not been seen when they agreed to take an article for review, or any other circumstances that prevent them from forming a fair and impartial assessment of the article;
  • refrain from studying the manuscript and related materials while waiting for instructions from the journal on the issues that may cause the request to terminate the review agreement;
  • carefully read the manuscript, supplementary materials (e.g., instructions for the reviewer, required ethical guidelines and principles of policy, files with attachments) and the journal instructions and refer to the journal if any questions arise or requesting the missing information needed to write a high-quality review;
  • notify the journal as soon as possible, if they find that they do not have the sufficient knowledge to assess all the aspects of the manuscript, not expecting the date of submission of the review, as it is an improper delay of the review process ;
  • not engage anyone to compile the review, including assistants, without the consent of the journal; the names of all people who helped the reviewers to write reviews, should be included in the text so that the fact of their participation was recorded in the journal and the journal could thank them;
  • not publicize any details of the manuscript and review;
  • report to the journal if there are circumstances that prevent them to prepare the review, giving an accurate estimate of the time that they need, if the journal does not appoint another reviewer instead of them;
  • in the case of a "double-blind" review, inform the journal if they guess the name of the author(s), if such knowledge may cause a conflict of interests;
  • promptly notify the journal if they found errors in the work, are concerned about the ethics of the work, learned about the substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other document or suspect that during the research or sending in the manuscript to the journal some misconduct took place, while at the same time, reviewers should keep their fears in secret and not to investigate the further circumstances of the case, unless the journal turns to them for help;
  • not delay the review process, delaying the submission of their reviews or requesting further unnecessary information from a magazine or website;
  • ensure that the assessment contained in their reviews is based on the quality of the work, and is not affected (neither in the better nor worse) by any personal, financial or other considerations, as well as intellectual predilections;
  • not address directly to the authors, without getting the prior permission from the journal.
  1. During the preparation of the review

Reviewers should: 

  • remember that the editor expects them to present domain knowledge, common sense, and fair and equitable assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript ;
  • if the review (at the request of the journal) affects only some aspects of the work, indicate this in the beginning of the review, and clearly indicate what aspects;
  • follow the instructions of the journal on the specific feedback that is required, and if there are no compelling reasons to avoid it, such feedback should be made;
  • write an objective and constructive review that can help the authors to improve their manuscript;
  • avoid derogatory personal comments or baseless accusations;
  • be specific in their criticism and confirm their general conclusions with solid evidence and relevant links, such as "this work has been done before" to help the editors create a correct assessment and decisions meeting the objective attitude to the authors;
  • remember that it is the author's work, and try not to rewrite it in accordance with their stylistic preferences, if it is generally qualitative and clearly written, although suggestions for improving the clarity are always welcome ;
  • comply with delicacy in matters of the language, if the authors write in the language that is not native to them, and formulate their comments appropriately and respectfully;
  • clearly indicate what proposed additional studies may support the findings of the reviewed manuscript, and may increase or enhance the work;
  • not write the review so that there were reasons to assume that it was written by someone else;
  • not portray in the review other people in a negative light or in a biased way;
  • not make unfair negative comments or present unjustified criticism of any competitive work mentioned in the manuscript;
  • make sure that the comments and recommendations addressed to the editor are in agreement with the report addressed to the authors; most of the information should be included in the report sent to the authors;
  • confidential comments sent to the editor and made in the belief that the authors would not see those comments should not contain slander and false accusations against the authors;
  • not offer the authors to include the references to the work of the reviewer (or their colleagues) in the publication only in order to increase their quoting or the visibility of their work, all the reviewers’ proposals should be based only on their scientific or technological value;
  • determine whether the policy of the journal lets them sign their reviews and, if so, decide whether they are comfortable to do so;
  • if the editor working with the manuscript, decides to write a review on it, he/she should do it transparently, not pretending to be an anonymous reviewer (if the journal is practicing anonymous reviewing), but writing a review to the manuscript of another editor can be considered as any other review.
  1. After the preparation of the review

Experts should: 

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review in secrecy;
  • respond quickly if there are any questions from the journal about the manuscript, and provide the necessary information;
  • contact with the journal, if after submitting the review they learned some important facts that could affect their original opinions and recommendations;
  • read the reviews written by other reviewers, if they are granted by the journal, in order to improve their understanding of the topic and their conclusions;
  • possible comply with requests made by journals to review the changes in the manuscript or the new version of the manuscript.


  1. Reliability and validity

1.1 The published research must be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards. 

1.2 The published study should be performed efficiently and carefully. 

1.3 The researchers must use appropriate methods for analysis and data reporting (and, if necessary, seek the advice of a specialist in this area). 

1.4 The authors are collectively responsible for the content of their work and publication. The researchers should carefully check their publications at all stages to ensure that all of their methods and results are described accurately. 

The authors should carefully check all calculations, data, their documentation and proofs. 

  1. Honesty

2.1 The researchers must submit the results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or unfair manipulation with the data. Editing of the published images (for example, micrographs, radiographs, photographs of electrophoresis) should not confuse the reader. 

2.2 The researchers should seek to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously. 

The researchers should follow the rules of presentation of scientific papers. Publications should provide sufficient information for other researchers to repeat the experiments. 

2.3 The research reports should be complete. They should not omit information about unexplained facts, inconsistent data, and the data that contradicts the theory or hypothesis of the authors or research sponsors. 

2.4 Research sponsors do not have the right to veto the publication of the results, which adversely represent their products or position. The researchers should not enter into agreements that allow sponsors to prohibit or control the publication of their results (except some cases, for example, if the study is considered secret at the governmental level). 

2.5 The authors should immediately notify the editor if they notice an error in any submitted for publication, accepted for publication or already published work. The authors should cooperate with editors on the necessary changes or cuts of the work.

2.6 Quotations and references to other works must be accurate and neatly drawn.

2.7 The authors should not copy references to the works with which they are not familiar from other publications. 

  1. Prudence

3.1 New results should be presented in the context of previous studies. Works of other scientists must be properly represented. The overview and conclusions of the existing studies should be complete, balanced and must include information, regardless of whether they support the hypothesis and interpretation of the author or not. The journals should clearly distinct between scientific articles and the editor’s columns and articles, representing a subjective point of view.

3.2 All restrictions adopted in the research should be included in the publication.

  1. Originality

4.1 The authors should comply with the demand that their work is original and has not been previously published anywhere in any language. The work cannot be sent to several publishers at the same time, except when the publishers agree on a joint publication. If an article is published jointly, this fact must be known to readers. 

4.2 Applicable conventions and legislation on copyright must be complied with. The material protected by copyright (for example, tables, figures or large quotations) may be reproduced only with the permission of their owners. 

4.3 Previous works by other researchers as well as the author’s should be referred to in the publication correctly and accurately. The reference to the source should be presented whenever possible.

4.4 It is necessary to specify authorship of the data, text, images and ideas that the author received from other sources, and they should not be presented as belonging to the author of the publication. Direct quotations from other works should be in quotes and with references.

4.5 Authors should notify the publishers if they propose to publish the data previously published elsewhere, or if any interpretation of the data has been sent to other publishers. In this case, the authors should provide the publishers with the copies of such publications or papers that have been sent for consideration to other journals.

4.6 Various publications resulting from work on a research project must be clearly identified as such and should include links to the original publications. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly marked, must have references to the source, comply with the relevant conventions on copyright and rules for obtaining permissions to use the information. In case of doubt, the authors must request permission from the publisher of the original source before reprinting any work.

  1. Transparency

5.1 All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, granting the equipment or materials, and other types of support (e.g., expert assistance in the statistical treatment of data or technical writers) must be specified.

5.2 The authors must provide the information on the degree of participation of the research sponsor (if any) in the project preparation, implementation, analysis, interpretation of the results and preparation of research reports.

5.3 The authors must give information on the financial and non-financial interests and relationships that could affect the interpretation of their findings, as well as the information that may be essential for publishers, reviewers and readers. This includes any kind of relationship with the journal, for example, if the issuers publish their own researches in their own journal. In addition, the authors should follow the requirements of the magazine and the agency for disclosure of competing interests.

  1. Authorship and links to resources

6.1 Literature contains not only information about the discoveries, but also about who made these discoveries. Consequently, the authorship of scientific publications should accurately reflect the contribution of individuals in the research and writing the report about it. 

6.2 In cases where people who have made the major contribution are listed as the authors, and those whose contributions to the research or writing was of a less significance or of purely technical nature, are referred to in expressions of gratitude, the criteria for authorship should be agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Ideally, the criteria for authorship in a particular area of the research should be coordinated, published and continually applied by the research centers, professional and academic communities and sponsors. Though the editors should develop and publish the criteria for authorship in certain specific areas of researches, they are not to expect the resolution of disputes on the issue. The responsibility for the correct determination of authorship rests fully on the authors acting in accordance with the rules adopted in their institution. Research institutions should develop and maintain fair standards of authorship and acknowledgment. If necessary, these institutions are to resolve disputes on the issues of authorship, including ensuring compliance with proper procedures. 

6.3 Researchers must guarantee that only those people who meet the criteria for authorship (i.e., made a significant contribution to the work) are considered to be the author, and that the researchers deserving authorship will not be excluded from the list of authors. Research centers and editors of scientific publications should implement practices to prevent the guest, anonymous or gift authorship.

6.4 All authors must agree to the listing of the authors and should approve of the edited and sent to publication version of the work. Any changes in the list of authors must be approved of by all authors, including those deleted from the list. The responsible author is a contact between the publisher and the other authors. They must inform the co-authors and involve them in decision-making on the matters of publication (e.g., when answering to the reviewers' comments) 

6.5 The authors should not mislead the reader by posting gratitude to people who were not actually involved in the work and did not support it. 

  1. Accountability and responsibility

7.1 All the authors must read and be familiar with the work and ensure that the work conforms to the principles outlined in this guide. In most cases, joint responsibility for the integrity of the study and the report rests on the authors. However, if the authors accept the responsibility only for certain aspects of the work and published material, this should be stated in the publication. 

7.2 The authors should work with the editors or publishers for early correction of their works in case of detection of these errors or omissions after publishing. 

7.3 The authors should adhere to the relevant conventions, requirements and regulations to make their materials, reagents, software, or data sets available for other researchers who ask for them. 

Researchers, research institutions and sponsors should have a clear policy for dealing with such requests. Authors are required to follow certain standards of the journals. If an expression of appreciation for the material is offered, the researchers should not require mentioning themselves among the authors as a condition for the provision of materials. 

7.4 Authors must respond appropriately to the comments following the publication, as well as to the published correspondence. They should try to answer the questions and provide reviewers with necessary clarifications and additional information, if needed. 

  1. Compliance with the agreements on peer reviewing and publications

8.1 Authors should comply with the publishers that work should not be offered simultaneously to publish in more than one issue. 

8.2 Authors should inform the editor if they refuse to review their work, or choose not to respond to the reviewer’s comments after receiving a conditional consent to the publication. 

8.3 Authors should answer the reviewer’s questions professionally and promptly. 

8.4 The authors have to respect the request of the publisher to limit media coverage and should not allow to report their findings to the media, if this article is accepted for publication (but not published yet) in a scientific issue. The authors and their research centers should liaise and interact with publishers to coordinate media activities (e.g., press releases and press conferences). Press releases should accurately reflect the content of the work and should not include data beyond the research results. 

  1. Responsible reflecting of the research results involving humans or animals

9.1 Relevant approval, licenses and registrations must be received before the beginning of the research, and this information should be included in the test report (e.g., approval of the expert council of the organization, the Committee on Research Ethics, the resolution of national licensing authorities on the use of animals). 

9.2 On request of the editor the authors should provide the evidence that the research described in the paper, received the necessary permits and conducted ethically (e.g., copies of approvals, licenses, consent forms of the participants). 

9.3 Researchers should not publish or distribute personal information, collected during the study without the explicit consent of the person (or the consent of their representatives). Researchers should remember that many scientific journals are freely available on the Internet, and therefore should bear in mind the risk of harm or moral damage to the untargeted audience (for example, research participants or their families who may find themselves in the presentation o case studies, descriptions, images or pedigrees). 

9.4 Methodology of statistical analysis of the data must be defined at the beginning of the research, data analysis plan for obtaining preliminary results must be prepared in advance, and must be adhered to. Secondary or a posteriori analysis should be clearly distinguished from primary analysis and the one specified in the plan.

9.5 Researchers should publish all relevant research results that are important for understanding. In particular, the ethical norm is to publish the results of all clinical trials. Publication of unsuccessful research or experiments that reject the hypothesis, can save others from wasting time and resources for the implementation of similar projects. If the results of minor researches and those that do not provide statistically significant results can be combined to obtain more useful information (e.g., by meta-analysis), then the data should be published.

9.6 On request the authors must provide the editors of journals with research protocols (e.g., clinical trials) for reviewers and editors to be able to compare the study report with the protocol in order to ensure that it was conducted in accordance with the plan, and no important details were omitted. Researchers should follow the relevant rules of registration of clinical trials and include the registration number of tests in all publications associated with these tests.