Publishing Ethics

The journal Educational Policy and its publisher, the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred as RANEPA) are committed to the highest ethical standards and make sure these standards are upheld in our publication practices. We expect the same from prospective authors and reserve the right to reject any submissions found to be in violation of the standards laid out below.

1. Duties of editors

1.1. Publication decision

The editor of the scientific journal "Educational Policy" is personally and independently responsible for making the decision to publish. The credibility of the work in question and its scientific value should always underlie the decision to publish. The editor may be governed by the journal’s Editorial Board policy, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors and reviewers during the decision to publish.

1.2. Decency

The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.

1.3. Confidentiality

The editor and the Editorial Board of the journal are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific consultants and the publisher, unless necessary.

1.4. Research engagement and collaboration

The editor, together with the publisher, shall take adequate measures in the event of ethical claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or requirement, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2. Duties of the reviewers

2.1. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and reasonably.

2.2. conscientiousness

Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the manuscript, or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly, should notify the Journal Editor and ask to be excluded from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.

2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for peer review must be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened and discussed with anyone who does not have the authority of the editor to do so.

2.4. Source recognition

Reviewers should identify significant published work relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier must have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor’s attention to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is within the scientific competence of the reviewer.

2.5. Conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

3. Responsibilities of authors

3.1. Manuscript Requirements

— Authors of original research reports should provide credible results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be accurately presented. The work must contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

— Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, the editorial point of view should be clearly indicated.

3.2. Originality and plagiarism

— Authors should make sure that the work presented is wholly original and, in the case of using works or statements of other authors, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

— Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else’s work as the author’s, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else’s work (without attribution) to claiming one’s own rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and is unacceptable.

3.3. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

— In general, an author should not publish a manuscript that is largely devoted to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is considered unethical behavior and is not acceptable.

— In general, the author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.

3.4. Recognition of primary sources

The contribution of others must always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, in the course of a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the work related to confidential sources.

3.5. Publication authorship

— The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be identified as contributors. Where research participants have made significant contributions to a specific area of research, they should be listed as having made significant contributions to the research.

— The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, that all co-authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed with its submission for publication.

3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as affecting the results or conclusions presented in the work.

3.7. Significant errors in published works

If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author should inform the editor of the journal "Educational Policy" or the publisher and cooperate with the editor in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If an editor or publisher receives information from a third party that a publication contains material errors, the author must withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

4. Obligations of the publisher

4.1 The publisher of the RANEPA must follow the principles and procedures that contribute to the fulfillment of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors of the journal "Educational Policy" in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production does not influence editors' decisions.

4.2. The publisher should support the journal’s editors in addressing ethical concerns about published material and should assist in dealing with other journals and/or publishers where this facilitates the editors' duties.

4.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, withdrawal procedures, and error correction.

4.4. The publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.