The journal ’’Psycho-pedagogics in Law Enforcement’’ adheres to the ethics principles and rules admitted in scientific literature expertise and publishing spheres Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) http://publicationethics.org) and Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read)
I. The author’s ethics
1. The journal acts on the premise that the author applying the publication offer hereby gives his consent to the journal’s ethics policy.
2. The author suggests an original work for publication. Borrowings are arranged:
2.1. On the basis of strict observance of the authorship and copyright law.
2.2. In the way allowing identification of the cited (mentioned) source.
2.3. According to the standards of arranging references.
3. Motivated derogations from subparagraphs 1.2 and 1.3 will not provoke false vision of the cited (mentioned) provision belonging to the author of the citing (mentioning) text.
4. The recommended limit of correct borrowings without self-borrowings (including self-citations) is up to 30% of the whole manuscript (it does not concern overviews and other materials which objectively require more citations). The maximum allowable level of self-borrowings (including self-citations) is 50% of the whole manuscript. With some exceptions justification to exceeding this level can become the subject for discussion between the author and the journal.
5. Any forms of plagiarism and appropriation of the results of unpublished researches of others are prohibited. He who was not engaged in the research presented in the manuscript will not be mentioned as the co-author.
6. The decision on the matter of co-authorship of the manuscript is taken by the author fairly, voluntarily on the basis of the actual personal contribution to the research presented in the manuscript and to its arrangement.
7. The author will not copy from other sources references to the works he did not familiarize himself with.
8. The author will submit to the journal neither the work published earlier nor the one submitted to another periodical.
9. Responsibility for the accuracy of the quantitative data including chronological dates, toponyms, citations, surnames, proper names will be assumed by the author as well as the responsibility for the translation of certain phrases from foreign languages included in the manuscript. Giving false data is not admitted. In case of finding mistakes and inaccuracies in the text by the author at the stage of consideration or after publishing the author will immediately notify the journal about it.
10. For correspondence with the journal and affiliation the author attaches personal data to the manuscript. By giving the journal personal information the author hereby gives his consent to locating it and the author’s photograph in the appropriate issue of the journal and on the informational resources whose owners the Academy has agreements with in relation to processing, reproduction and distribution of the journal’s content.
11. The author gives his agreement to the article’s manuscript being reviewed. In case the expertise of the manuscript and (or) its metadata found faults requiring elaboration the author either asks in written form to recall the manuscript or collaborates with the journal aiming to arrange the text in the way the journal will approve its publication.
12. In the manuscript the author reveals the sources of financing, technical or other substantive support given to conduct the research presented in the manuscript and (or) arrange the manuscript basing on its results (if there are such sources). Those individuals who provided significant voluntary, consultation, technical and any other support (if there are such) should be listed in acknowledgements.
II. Editorial ethics
13. When conducting scientific expertise and taking the decision as to publication of the work the journal makes an estimate of its content, scientific significance and design irrespectively to the author’s racial and ethnic data, his political and religious views, social background and citizenship (statelessness), as well as any other factors beyond scientific and literary value of the work (including motives resulting from conflict of interest hindering scientific objectivity and professionalism).
14. For publication are not admitted the materials of ideologized, religious and political character containing biased, unproved and (or) stylistically incorrect assessments of other scientific works and scholars.
15. The journal takes measures to oversee originality of the manuscripts. When discovering incorrect borrowings or the fact of the author’s submitting the material offered to the journal to another periodical the journal notifies the author about it, refuses the publication and considers neither new versions of the manuscript nor his other offers for publication.
16. The journal responds to the author’s substantiated claims taking efforts to resolve conflicts.
17. Disagreements between the journal’s and the author’s opinions are not an insuperable obstacle for publication.
III. Peer review ethics
18. Manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal are to be reviewed (given scientific assessment).
19. Peer review aims at supervising correspondence of the journal’s content to its profile, ensuring high scientific level of the journal and selecting the most valuable and relevant (promising) publications.
20. The journal is entitled to reject the manuscript without reviewing in case it is considered to be of low quality or not corresponding to its profile and (or) appealing to the reader. Such a decision is taken fairly, impartially, reasonably, with arguments given and with the author’s being notified about it.
21. The reviewer adheres to the journal’s ethics policy as to the scientific assessment of the manuscript.
22. The reviewer will not use the unpublished data obtained from the reviewed manuscript implicitly. If the reviewer relies on the unpublished scientific achievements he becomes aware of from the reviewed manuscript in his own researches and publications before the publication of the reviewed material, he, showing respect to the copyright and scientific priority, refers to the unpublished document noting its requisites and access date.
23. The reviewer not possessing, in his opinion, sufficient qualification to assess the manuscript or not capable of being objective, informs the journal about it and asks to excuse him from the reviewing procedure.
24. The journal informs the author about the results of the reviewing. If the author and the reviewer disagree as to the assessment of the manuscript the journal responds according to the above declared priorities of the editorial ethics. At the same time neither the reviewer nor the journal will discuss the content of the review with the author.
25. Disagreements between the reviewer’s and the author’s opinions will not be an insuperable obstacle for publishing.