Publication Ethics

The Society and Security Insights follows standards and guidelines regarding research and publishing activities, elaborated by international organizations (International sociological association, Committee on publication ethics). Submitting the article to SSI, the authors acknowledge, that the research was conducted and the article was written according to Ethical Codes, elaborated by these professional associations. Before starting the submission procedure, the authors are welcomed to check whether their material complies with these recommendations:

The International Sociological Association's (ISA) Code of Ethics 

COPE's Core Practices

The Editorial Board expects that all participants of publishing process will act in accordance with standards and requirements of publication ethics, accepted in international publishing practice.

Our journal has no publication fees for any category of authors. Free character of publication is the principal position of the Editorial Board.

Editor-in-chief and Editorial Board responsibilities

Editors have responsibilities toward the authors who provide the content of the journal, the peer reviewers who comment on the suitability of manuscripts for publication, the journal’s readers and the scientific community, and the public as a whole.

Editors provide guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts and treat all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency. They establish and define policies on conflicts of interest for all involved in the publication process, including editors, staff (e.g., editorial and sales), authors, and reviewers. They ensure protection of the confidentiality of every author’s work. Editors are responsible for monitoring and ensuring the fairness, timeliness, thoroughness, and civility of the peer-review editorial process.

The Editor-in-chief takes the final decision on the publication based on advice given by the Editorial Board. If submitted manuscript matches the scope and formal requirements of the journal, the Editor-in-chief sends its anonymized version to independent reviewers. The decision is made on the basis of reviewers’ recommendations. The exceptions are book reviews, research news, meeting reports, opinion articles, obituaries and other biographic materials. The Editor-in-chief is guided in his/her work solely by considerations of scientific and publishing ethics. Gender, race, ethnic, political or other forms of discrimination are categorically condemned. The Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board members undertake to carry out their obligations and publish the journal four times a year.

If requested from other publishers, founders or third parties, including the Ministry of Science and Higher education of the Russian Federation, the Editor-in-chief must consider the question of provision of materials regarding the manuscript preparation (reviews, discussion reports and others) and take the decision. The Editorial Board pledges to keep reviews for 5 years from the date of their submission to the journal.

Responsibilities of reviewers

The peer reviewers are responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. The reviewer must provide to the editor an objective, expert opinion on whether the paper satisfies the journal criteria and is suitable for publication. The reviewer must understand the technical content of the paper and evaluate whether the paper gives a sufficient contribution to the relevant field in accordance with the scope and readers’ interest of the journal. If the paper is insufficient for publication in its present form but includes new and significant results that could contribute greatly to the field, the reviewer is expected to help authors improve the quality of paper to a publishable level. In contrast, the reviewer must function as a filter to reject unreasonable or misleading works.

If a reviewer believes that there is a conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) for a manuscript, the reviewer should either seek clarification with the assigning Associate Editor or decline the invitation.

A conflict of interest is any circumstance that raises the question either of bias in the review or when the reviewer’s personal interests compete with responsibilities to the engineering and scientific community, the readers and SSI. Examples of cases which could cause conflict of interest include:

  • The reviewer has an ownership interest in a company that stands to benefit from the results reported in the manuscript.
  • The reviewer is currently collaborating with one of the authors or has recently collaborated with the author.
  • The reviewer feels that it is not possible to provide an impartial and objective review free of personal or professional bias.
  • The manuscript is authored by colleague at the same university as the reviewer.
  • The reviewer has served as thesis advisor of an author.

Peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers.

If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the work reported, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly to the editor.

A reviewer shall call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published manuscript or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal. If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a manuscript contains plagiarized material or falsified research data, or evidence of simultaneous submission, the reviewer shall notify the editor, who will determine the final disposition of the matter.

It is advisable that peer reviews consult and follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Authorship and authors responsibilities

Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.

Authors have a responsibility to give due acknowledgement to all workers contributing to the work. Those who have contributed significantly to the research should be listed as co-authors. On submission of the manuscript, the corresponding author attests to the fact that those named as co-authors have agreed to its submission for publication and accepts the responsibility for having properly included all (and only) co-authors. If there are more than 10 co-authors on the manuscript then the corresponding author should provide a statement to specify the contribution of each co-author.

The corresponding author signs a 'licence to publish' on behalf of all the authors. Any change in authorship after initial submission must be approved by all authors and justified to the editor.

In the case of authorship disputes, authors are encouraged to reach a mutual agreement. If this is not possible, unresolved disputes should be referred to the responsible research institution(s) for mediation.

Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If articles are co-published this fact should be made clear to readers.

Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors should provide copies of related publications or work submitted to other journals.

All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed. Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know.

 COPE International standards for authors