Vol. 14, №1, 2022
The editorial board of journal RENSIT shared ethical principles of international publications and maintains standards of responsible publication of research papers. These standards were developed with the participation of world experts on the ethics of publication and are coordinated by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications - Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), http://publicationethics.org.
The editorial board encourages all participants the publication process in journal RENSIT – editors, authors, reviewers, and editorial council members, publisher and readers – to navigate international standards and declares adherence to the following principles and standards of publication ethics.
Editors should be accountable for everything published in journal. This means the editors should:
  • strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • strive to constantly improve journal;
  • have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
  • champion freedom of expression;
  • maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
  • always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best practice for editors would include
  • actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
  • encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
  • working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
  • supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
  • supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
  • assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
  • ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context
Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include:
  • ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
  • ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
  • adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. CONSORT http://www.equator-network.org)
  • considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles3
  • adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work)4 and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
  • informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial council members receive an objective and unbiased evaluation
3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based 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 not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
3.5. Journal should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this principles and standards.
3.7. Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the generally accepted standards.
Best practice for editors would include:
    • reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
    • publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
    • ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
    • respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
    • being guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts ) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
    • publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)
    • publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles
    4.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this principles and standards.
    4.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
    4.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
    • encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
    • considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
    • sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks
    • seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
    • encouraging academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
    • monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
    • developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
    • ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
    • ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
    • using a wide range of sources and not just personal contacts, to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
    • following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct council
    Editors should provide new editorial council members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial council members to ensure unbiased review
    • identifying suitably qualified editorial council members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
    • regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial council
      • providing clear guidance to editorial council members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
      • acting as ambassadors for the journal
      • supporting and promoting the journal
      • seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
      • reviewing submissions to the journal
      • accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
      • attending and contributing to editorial council meetings
    • consulting editorial council members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.
    6.1. The relationship of editors to publisher should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
    6.2. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the publisher.
    6.3. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the publisher.
    6.4. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and the publisher with due process
    • communicating regularly with their publisher.
    7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
    7.2. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to journal remains confidential while under review.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
    • keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
    • adopting peer review methods best suited for journal and the research community it serves
    • reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
    • referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
    • considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally
    Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journal and sections within journal will have different aims and standards.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
    • basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT http://www.equator-network.org) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.
    Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors.
    10.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
    10.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
    10.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts.
    10.4. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
    10.5. 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. This is an onerous but important duty.
    11.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
    11.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication
    • ensuring that published material is securely archived
    • having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available
    Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
    • supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
    • being prepared to work with publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright
    13.1. Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in journal.
    13.2. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
    13.3. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
    Best practice for editors would include: • being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal.
    14.1. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
    14.2. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
    15.1. Journal have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions, on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
    15.2. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • publishing a general description of journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
    • ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
    • ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations
    16.1. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial council members.
    16.2. Journal have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial council to ensure unbiased review
    Best practice for editors would include:
    • publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial council (which should be updated at least annually).