Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The editorial board aims to meet the needs of readers and authors in the field of research. The editorial activities are based on the principles of respect for copyright and intellectual property, professionalism and impartiality.

Authors of scientific articles should provide reliable results of the completed work, as well as objective discussion of the significance of the research. The article, submitted by the author of the study, should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly false statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are, therefore, inadmissible for publication. Plagiarism can take many forms - submitting someone else's work, copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work (without attribution). Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

The author should not publish a manuscript as the original publication to more than one journal, if most part of it is devoted to the same research problem. Submission of the same manuscript simultaneously to several journals is perceived as unethical behavior, the author should not submit for consideration to the collection of previously published article. When preparing a manuscript for publication the author must inform the editor about author's related manuscripts submitted or accepted for publication. The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication. The author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board and may require the editor not to use some reviewers for reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if he or she is convinced that their opinions are important for impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example, when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript and the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes serve as a basis for criticizing another researcher's work. Published articles may contain similar criticism where it is appropriate. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances. Authors must inform the editor about any potential conflicts of interests such as consulting or financial interests of any company, which could be affected by the publication of the results of the manuscript. Authors should ensure that no contractual or proprietary considerations exist that could affect the publication of the information, contained in the submitted manuscript.

 

Ethical obligations of reviewers

Reviewing helps the Editor to decide about approval of the release and can help the author to improve the quality of the work. All scholars, who wish to contribute to the publication, are required to do an essential job of reviewing the manuscripts of scientific articles. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is relevant to the level of research, presented in the manuscript, he must return the manuscript immediately.

Reviewers should not be involved in reviewing manuscripts in the event of conflict of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations, associated with the submitted work. The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation and the extent of high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors. The reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, when a particular manuscript is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, indicating a conflict of interest. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript of author or co-author, if he has personal or professional connections with them and if such relationships may affect the judgment on manuscript. Each manuscript, received for review, should be treated as a confidential document. Such work may not be opened and discussed with any person, who is not authorized to commit such acts. The exception may be the need of reviewer in someone's special advice.

The reviewer must provide feedback in a timely manner. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts for review can`t be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. The information or ideas, received during the review and related to the potential benefits, should be kept confidential and can not be used for personal gain.

 

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

Editors are responsible for decision to publish a scientific article. The decision to publish a scientific article should always be based on the accuracy of the work and its scientific significance. Editors are responsible for complying with all the recommendations in the submitted article. Editors can consult with reviewers when deciding whether to publish a scientific article. The Editor and the Editorial Board can`t disclose information about accepted manuscripts without necessity, except for authors, reviewers, possible reviewers and other scientific consultants. The editor should review all manuscripts, submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the editor, he takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer - doctor (candidate) in the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript, submitted for publication. However, the manuscript may be rejected without peer review, if the editor believes that it does not fit the profile of this collection of scientific works. Unpublished data, obtained from submitted manuscripts, can`t be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. The information or ideas, received during the review and related to the potential benefits, should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. After a positive decision of the editor, the article is published in the journal "Social Law" and is also published on the official website of the journal, relevant electronic resources. The responsibility and rights of the journal editor may be delegated to any other qualified person with respect to any submitted manuscript, authored by the editor himself.

 

For reviewers

Reviewing helps the Editor decide to decide about approval of the release and can help the author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewers should not be involved in reviewing manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations, associated with the submitted work. The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation and also consider the extent of high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors. The reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, when a particular manuscript is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, indicating a conflict of interest. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript of author or co-author, if he has personal or professional connections with them and if such relationships may affect the judgment on manuscript. Each manuscript, received for review, should be treated as a confidential document, with the exception –the reviewer`s need in someone's special advice.

 

Reviewers should adequately explain their opinions so that editors and authors can understand, what their comments are based on. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript, submitted to another journal at the same time. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. The personal criticism of the author is unacceptable, the reviewers should express their opinion clearly and reasonably. Reviewers should identify significant published works, relevant to the topic, and not included in the manuscript.

The reviewer must provide feedback in a timely manner. Unpublished data, obtained from submitted manuscripts for review, cannot be used in personal research without written consent of the author. The information or ideas, received during the review and related to the potential benefits, should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.