Scientific journal

New Psychological Research

Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Editorial board of the scientific journal “New Psychological Research” seeks for broad and competent scientific communication and assumes responsibility for maintaining high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. Our standards are based on strict ethical policies, general expectations for authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and society partners.  Our statements follow the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and are prepared on its data.

Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.

  1. Editorial board and personally Editors responsibilities

  • Bear responsibility for an assessment of reliability and the scientific importance of the data stated in the published article.
  • Have to proceed from policy of journal and from legal requirements for slander, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
  • Have to estimate contents of papers regardless of race, gender/sex, sexual orientation, religious views, origins, nationality or political preferences of Authors.
  • Undertake not to open needlessly information about the accepted paper to any other persons except for Authors, Reviewers and Scientific consultants.
  • The materials containing in presented to consideration and yet not published article, can’t be used by the Editor or the Reviewer in personal researches without written agreement of the Author. The editor and the Reviewer are obliged to observe confidentiality concerning information or ideas which became known for them during reviewing of papers and shouldn’t use them for obtaining personal benefit.
  • Have to take rejection from consideration of articles in case of existence of the conflicts of interests due to competitive, joint or other relationship with the Authors or the organizations concerning the manuscript.
  • Have to handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
  • The editor who obtained the convincing evidence of the fact that the materials presented in the published article are incorrect, has to report about it to scientific community for the fastest publication of corrections, denials or other statements corresponding to a situation.
  • Are obliged to take the adequate answer-back measures in case of the ethical claims concerning the considered articles or already published materials. Similar measures usually include interaction with Authors of the paper and thorough examination of the corresponding complaint or requirement, as well as interaction with the relevant organizations and the research centers.
  • Can confer with other Editors and Reviewers during making decision on the publication.
  1. Reviewer responsibilities

  • Has to help the Editorial board to make the decision on the publication, and also can help the Author to increase quality of work.
  • Adequately estimate his qualification and extent of employment at adoption to review the article. Insufficient qualification and deficiency of time must be the bases of denial of the reviewing.
  • Has no right to show or discuss the reviewed article with the persons who don’t have any powers from the Editor.
  • Obliged to give an objective assessment to the paper, clear and reasonable express his opinion. The personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable.
  • Has to point to the significant published works corresponding to a subject and not included in the bibliography to the article as well as lookout that the materials presented in the early published articles are followed by the corresponding bibliographic link.
  • Has to pay attention of the Editor in case of detection of essential similarity or coincidence between the considered paper and any other published work which is in the sphere of scientific competence of the Reviewer.
  • Obliged to observe confidentiality concerning information or ideas which became known in the course of reviewing of articles and has no right to use them for obtaining personal benefit.
  • Has no right to use in personal researches the unpublished data obtained from the papers presented to consideration without written agreement of the Author.
  • Shouldn’t participate in consideration of articles in case of existence of the conflicts of interests (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships) to any of Authors or the organizations connected with the presented work.
  1. Authors responsibilities

  • Have to provide consistent information about the work and pay sufficient attention to objective discussion of its importance. All data have to be reflected most accurately. Article has to contain enough details and bibliographic links for a possibility of reproduction of research by other scientists. False or obviously incorrect statements are unacceptable and are perceived as unethical behavior.
  • Reviews and scientific articles also have to be exact and objective.
  • Have to maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript; be ready to provide access to primary data concerning the article for consideration by Editors on reasonable request. Have to keep these data throughout the sufficient period of time after the publication. It is appropriate and allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others.
  • Have to make sure that they present completely original work and that all links to works and/or quotes of other authors are issued as appropriate.
  • Plagiarism in any forms (from representation of others work as his own to copying or rephrasing of essential parts of others works without indication of authorship and the statement of own rights for results of others researches) is the act of unethical behavior and is absolutely unacceptable.
  • The author shouldn’t publish the works describing the same research, at once in several journals printing primary publications. Submission of the same manuscript at the same time in some magazines is perceived as unethical behavior and it is unacceptable.
  • Shouldn’t submit for consideration article which was already published in other journal, except some types of articles (for example, clinical recommendations, translated articles). Thus the bibliography of primary work has to be presented in the second publication. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
  • Has to display a contribution of other persons to the published work, for example, to specify those publications which were significant for their own research. The data obtained from confidential or private sources (for example, during conversation, correspondences or in the course of discussion) shouldn’t be used or presented without clear written permission of the primary source.
  • It is necessary to specify by authors of the publication only those persons who made an essential contribution to formation of a strategy, development, execution and interpretation of the presented research. Everything who made an essential contribution to work, have to be designated as Co-authors. Other persons who made this or that contribution to the research project can be specified as participants, or separate gratitude can be expressed to them.
  • Has to make sure as that all participants who made an essential contribution to research are presented as Co-authors, and that among Co-authors there are no those who didn’t take part in work. It is also important to be convinced that all Co-authors saw and approved the final version of work and agreed with its publication.
  • If work assumes use of chemical products, procedures or the equipment containing any unusual risk, the Author has to designate accurately it in the manuscript.
  • If in research participate people or animals as objects of research, Authors have to make sure that in the paper is specified that all stages of research correspond to the legislation and normative documents of the research organizations, and also are approved by the relevant committees (g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on Use of Animals). It is necessary to watch observance of the right for personal privacy always.
  • Are obliged to expose in the article financial or other existing conflicts of interests which can be apprehended as the facts which had impact on the results or conclusions presented in work.

In case of detection by the Author of essential mistakes or inaccuracies in the publication he has to report about it to the Editor for withdrawal of the publication or correction of mistakes.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

  • Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
  • Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
  • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer about appearance of misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards with warning to future behavior.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.

Journal responsibilities

Both Editors and publishers ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.