The editorial policy of the journal “Moscow University Bulletin Psychology” is based on the traditional ethical principles of Russian scientific periodicals and current legal requirements in respect to copyright law, plagiarism and libel as set forth in the Russian legislation.
The journal's editorial board upholds the Code of Scientific Publications Ethics as formulated by the Committee on Scientific Publications Ethics (Moscow, Russia), and conducts the journal's policy taking into account the work ethics of editors and publishers, enshrined in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, elaborated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Below are the rules of ethical conduct of parties involved in article publication.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making decisions on the publication of articles submitted by ensuring that the reason for his decision is based on their discussion by leading scholars at Moscow State University's Psychology Faculty and outside experts as reviewers.
The Editor-in Chief and reviewers shall consider each paper solely on the merit of its reliability, scientific importance and relevance regardless of a manuscript author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality or political opinions.
The Editor's requirement for journal reviewers is that they should observe the following principles: confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, clarity and validity of their opinion as well as respect for the principle of recognition of primary sources.
His requirement for journal authors is that they should observe the following principles:
Originality of research
Provision of reliable results of a work performed;
Objective discussion of the significance of a study;
Lack of error in data presentation;
Recognition of other researchers- contribution, mandatory citation of references to works used;
Provision of information from confidential sources solely upon permission of their authors;
Presentation of all those who have made a significant contribution to the research as co-authors;
Approval of the final version of a paper by each of its co-authors and their full consent to its submission for publication;
Disclosure of potential conflicts of financial and other interests, i.e., facts that may be construed to have had effect on the results or conclusions presented in a paper;
Immediate notification by an author upon finding significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication and interaction with the editor for early error correction or removal of the publication in question.
As part of our efforts to improve the quality of the journal, we would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining high ethical standards when publishing articles in “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin”.
In our publishing activity we rely upon regulations of the Chapter 70 “Author's Right” of the Russian Federation Civil Code and The Code of Ethics of The Russian Psychological Society
“Moscow University Psychology Bulletin” requires that submitted manuscripts are solely the author’s own work and not the work of others, unless explicit permission has been granted. This includes text, figures and tables.
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for it. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to: a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on c) final approval of the version to be published.
It is the corresponding authors’ responsibility to seek permission from each author to publish the materials and to get consensus on the authorship before submission to “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin”.
People who provide financial assistance and technical support or were committee members could be acknowledged but not recognized as authors. Examples of specific contributions that might warrant acknowledgement include sources of funding, provision of expert technical assistance, review and critique of a manuscript, assistance with statistical analysis and interpretation, or participation in the formulation of ideas or planning of a project.
The articles must be authentic and should not contain manipulated data or fraudulent information. This also applies to direct translation between different languages.
Articles should describe results as accurately as possible, and avoid using statements of opinions as facts. The manuscript should present the results in a direct way and avoid misleading the reader or causing misunderstandings. It is important to discuss the significance of the results; at the same time, it is crucial not to over-interpret the results. Excessive or biased interpretation will not contribute to scientific progress and will mislead readers.
Plagiarism is a significant violation of truthfulness and involves stealing intellectual property or taking credit for other individuals' work. The responsibility for plagiarism lies ultimately with the writer.
Recommendations for avoiding plagiarism.
Use quotation marks around words taken verbatim from a source.
Change no part of quotation within the context of the sentence.
Use single marks for a quotation within a quotation.
Use ellipses (a space and three periods) for a part of the quotation omitted.
Use brackets around added words.
Limit the use of direct quotes.
Attempt to paraphrase the information, or summarize the information derived from a variety of sources using own words.
Some authors have written several chapters for several different books that are changed only slightly. Each manuscript is copyrighted when published. Because the author no longer owns the rights to these words, one should not plagiarize them. Most editors and reviewers would argue that self-plagiarism is unethical. Thus, an author cannot copy one’s own material for a new manuscript without permission of the copyright holder. Alternatives include using quotes around short phrases of own work and citing appropriate references.
Articles submitted to “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin” must not contain any results that have been reported in any journals or books in any form. You should inform editors of any potential duplicate publications.
We practice the principle of single submission: one submission of one manuscript to one journal at a time and no resubmission to another journal until a written rejection has been received. Editors must have exclusive rights to the manuscript. This principle does not eliminate consideration for publication of any paper previously rejected by another journal.
Criteria for authors to determine whether their material is considered "duplicate."
Identical content to something previously published.
Highly similar content to other materials with minimal changes.
Several articles when one would be enough.
Similar articles for various disciplines.
The papers having political profile, or the papers including biased or incorrect evaluations of other scientific works and other specialists, are not accepted for publication.
Academic misconduct in any form will not be tolerated by “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin”. In cases of suspected misconduct (plagiarism, fraud, breached intellectual property rights, etc.) a panel will be formed to evaluate the substance of the claim. If the claim is supported by evidence, the paper in question will be rejected for consideration in “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin” and all authors and their affiliations will be informed. In cases where the paper has already been published before the misconduct was discovered, a retraction by authors or by the “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin” board will have to take place and the case will be made public. Evident cases of misconduct may result in a three-year or longer ban from future submission to “Moscow University Psychology Bulletin”. All appeals regarding the panel’s decisions have to go through the Editor-in-Chief and should be submitted within 30 days of the decision date.
Manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Reviewers also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is alleged but otherwise must be honored.
Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to use the materials for legal proceedings.
Editors must make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors’ rights by not publicly discussing the authors’ work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the editor’s permission. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews. Editors should not keep copies of rejected manuscripts.
Reviewer comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.
Opinions differ on whether reviewers should remain anonymous. Authors should consult the Information for Authors of the journal to which they have chosen to submit a manuscript to determine whether reviews are anonymous. When comments are not signed, the reviewers’ identity must not be revealed to the author or anyone else without the reviewers’ permission.
Some journals publish reviewers’ comments with the manuscript. No such procedure should be adopted without the consent of the authors and reviewers. However, reviewers’ comments should be sent to other persons reviewing the same manuscript, which helps reviewers learn from the review process. Reviewers also may be notified of the editor’s decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
Patients and study participants have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these subjects whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient and study participant consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. Applicable laws vary from locale to locale, and journals should establish their own policies with legal guidance. Since a journal that archives the consent will be aware of patient identity, some journals may decide that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the author archive the consent and instead providing the journal with a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent.
Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of subjects is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s Instructions for Authors. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.
“Moscow University Psychology Bulletin” requires all authors and reviewers to declare any conflicts of interest that may be inherent in their submissions.
Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, or editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected. Financial relationships with industry, for example, through employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered to be the most important conflicts of interest.
However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Bias can often be identified and eliminated by careful attention to the scientific methods and conclusions of the work. Financial relationships and their effects are less easily detected than other conflicts of interest. Participants in peer review and publication should disclose their conflicting interests, and the information should be made available so that others can judge their effects for themselves.
When submitting a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.
External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ conflicts of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified. Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.