Ethical principles of scientific publications

The editors of the journal support the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers "Ethical principles of scientific publications" .

"Basic principles:

4. Editorial ethics. The editorial team of the journal in its activities is guided by the principles of science, objectivity, professionalism, impartiality.
5. Responsibility for compliance with ethical standards. Researchers, authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers have an ethical obligation to publish and disseminate the results of scientific research.
6. Rules of communication with authors. Interaction with authors is based on the principles of fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty and transparency.
7. The presence of a review institute. All content of the journal, except advertising and editorial materials clearly marked as such, is subject to mandatory peer review (open, blind, double blind). Double-blind peer review is preferred.
8. Access to publications. Journals guarantee access to publications by providing storage of materials in the leading libraries and repositories of scientific information in the country.
9. information openness. The publishing page on the Internet publishes provisions on publication ethics and peer review, clearly articulates the journal's policy, rules for submitting manuscripts, instructions for authors and information on the availability of materials (free access or by subscription). Be sure to indicate ISSN, the address of the publisher.
10. Information about paid services. All information about paid services, if any, in one form or another, is clearly written and available on the journal's website, approved by the editor-in-chief. If the journal does not provide paid services, this is also indicated on the publication's website.
11. Compliance with the ethical criteria of authorship. An author is only a person who was significantly involved in the writing of the work, in the development of its concept, in scientific design, collection of material, analysis and interpretation; 2. Obligatory is the consent of all authors to the publication. All co-authors must meet these criteria.
12. Coordination of the final text of the article with the author. The publication of an article under the name of the author implies the emergence of copyright. The publication of a text not agreed with the author, as well as the inclusion of third parties as co-authors, is a violation of copyright.
13. Terms of decision-making by the editors. Editorial decisions are made within a limited time frame and are set out in a clear and constructive form on the publication's website in the instructions for authors.
14. Interaction with scientific and professional associations. The editorial boards seek to interact with professional scientific associations and industry communities in order to ensure the high quality of the work of scientists.
15. Prevention and correction of violations of ethics. The duty of scientific editors is to prevent situations when authors, reviewers or other entities involved in the production of scientific texts engage in unethical behavior, as well as to ensure the removal of unfair publications from the scientific space, to cooperate with the ethics council and scientific associations.
16. Conflict of interest. The editors encourage authors to disclose relationships with industrial and financial organizations that could lead to a conflict of interest. All sources of funding must be indicated by the authors in the body of the article.

ANRI recognizes the following as unethical behavior in the field of scientific publications:

17. The requirement for authors to independently provide reviews of their own articles, as well as contractual and pseudo-reviewing. This practice implies the absence of peer review in the journal.
18. Proposal of agency services. Provision of such services to authors as "turnkey publication", correspondence with the editors on behalf of the author, revision of articles by the agent on the recommendations of the reviewer, preparation of paid reviews.
19. Sale of co-authorship, gift co-authorship, change in the composition of authors. The indication among the authors of persons who have not made an intellectual contribution to the study is a violation of copyright and ethical standards, since it not only misleads readers, but is also regarded as fraud.
20. Publication of materials of correspondence "scientific" conferences. Since the practice of such conferences is directly related to machinations and fraud in the field of science, the publication of the materials of these conferences is regarded as unethical, contributing to the spread of pseudoscientific texts.
21. Transfer of texts of articles to other journals without the consent of the authors. The publication of an article in a journal that has not been agreed with the author is a violation of the author's interests.
22. Transfer of materials of authors to third parties. The transfer of the materials of articles sent to the editorial office to third parties, except for reviewers and editorial staff, is a violation of copyright and the principle of confidentiality of editorial processes.
23. Citation manipulation. Artificial increase in scientometric indexes, excessive self-citation and friendly citation, irrelevant links mislead readers and are interpreted as fraud.
24. Plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The editors conscientiously work with the texts of articles, preventing the appearance of unscrupulous scientific publications containing plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data on the pages of their publications. 

Source: ANRI website .

Article review process

Review procedure

In order to provide an expert assessment in accordance with the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, the manuscripts received and selected by the editors for publication are subject to mandatory preliminary review. Publication of articles in the journal "In the center of the economy" without a review is not allowed. The list of reviewers is updated at least once a year.

All manuscripts of articles received by the editorial office are sent for review to members of the editorial board of the journal "In the Center of Economics", researchers of higher educational institutions, scientific, educational and other institutions. The author has the right to attach to the article an appropriate review, received by him independently from the leading scientist in the profile of the article. The review submitted by the author does not cancel the review of articles initiated by the editors.

Each scientific article is assigned a minimum of two independent reviewers. The reviewer must have published within the last three years on the subject of the reviewed article.

Reviews are certified in the manner prescribed by the organization at the place of work of the reviewer.

Review Model

Model of the peer review procedure used by the journal "In the Center of Economics", double blind review. The applied model implies non-disclosure of the names of reviewers, journal issues and the anonymity of published scientific reviews.

The review is confidential. The author of the reviewed article is given the opportunity to read the text of the review. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the article are unreliable or falsified.

Review term

The review term is determined in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article. Reviewing the article is carried out no later than one month from the date of its receipt. Reviews are sent to the authors for consideration when finalizing manuscripts.

The average time for initial evaluation of manuscripts is 20 days.

The average review time for manuscripts is 40 days.

The average time for publishing an article is 60 days.

Review procedure

Prepared reviews are attached to the manuscripts of articles and are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years. The editorial board of journals sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in case of receipt of a corresponding request to the editorial office. A copy of the review is sent no later than 10 working days from the receipt of the specified request.

The review is prepared in writing, which contains an unambiguous conclusion about the admission of a scientific article for publication.

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and improving the article, the text of the review is sent to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). The article modified (revised) by the author is re-sent for review. The authors are obliged to finalize the manuscript in accordance with the comments of the reviewers.

After making a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editor-in-chief informs the author indicating the publication period. The text of the review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for re-consideration. If it is impossible to publish the article, the editors send the author a reasoned refusal with an appropriate review attached. The text of the negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

In case of a negative review, the manuscript is sent for re-review with the involvement of another independent expert to confirm or refute the conclusions of the first expert. A necessary condition for rejecting a manuscript is to receive at least two negative reviews.

After reviewing, each manuscript undergoes mandatory preliminary scientific editing in order to ensure a highly professional scientific level of publications and take into account the comments made by the reviewers. Publication of articles in the journal "In the center of the economy" without scientific editing is not allowed, subject to the minimum required editing of the manuscript in order to ensure the originality of the author's texts.

Review form

For peer review, a structured form of published scientific reviews is used. Public distribution of the criteria for acceptance or rejection of scientific articles is enshrined in the form of public distribution of the review form.

The review addresses the following questions:

• whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title,
• how the article corresponds to modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought,
• whether the article is accessible to the readers for whom it is intended, in terms of language, style, arrangement of material, visibility of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas,
• whether the publication of the article is appropriate, taking into account the previously published literature on this issue,
• what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author,
• recommended, taking into account the correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer, or the article is not recommended for publication in the journal.

To the editor of a scientific journal

  "At the center of the economy"

 REVIEW 

 Title of the article: "_________________________________________________"

The article elements are evaluated in the form of an evaluation table on a five-point scale:

In conclusion, the reviewer provides recommendations, highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The description of the reviewer's decision is given as a short summary:

• recommend an article for publication;
• recommend the article for publication conditionally (that is, after revision and elimination of the comments made);
• refuse to recommend for publication;
• Other - at the discretion of the reviewer.

Academic degree, academic title,  position, place of work Signature ___________ Full name

Conflict of interest

Reviewers are required to sign a statement on the prevention of conflicts of interest.

In order to avoid cases of violation of publication ethics, it is important to exclude the conflict of interests of all parties involved in the process of publishing an article. A conflict of interest arises if the author, reviewer or member of the editorial board has a financial, scientific or personal relationship that may influence their decisions. These relationships are also dual obligations, competing interests, or competing loyalties.

In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the accepted ethical standards of the journal, the following responsibilities are assigned to each of the parties.

The editor must:

- to transfer the article for consideration to another member of the editorial board if the originally appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;

— request from all participants in the process of publishing an article information about the possibility of competing interests;

– decide on the publication of information indicated in the letter of the author regarding the conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may affect the assessment of the published work by the scientific community;

- ensure the publication of amendments if information about the conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.

The author is obliged:

- list known and potential sources of conflict of interest in the cover letter;

- indicate the place of their work and the source of funding for the study;

- if there is no conflict of interest - clearly state this in the cover letter.

The reviewer must:

- inform the editor-in-chief about the presence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and refuse to examine the article.

Ghostwriting and guest authorship