Section “Ethics of scientific publications”

The editorial board of the scientific journal “Communication Studies” is guided in its work by the international ethical rules of scientific publications, which include the rules of integrity, confidentiality, publication oversight, consideration of possible conflict of interests, etc. The editorial board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and draws on the experience of prestigious international journals and publishing houses.

“Communication Studies” review policy

1. All articles must be subject to obligatory double-blind peer review before publishing.

2. The executive secretary of the journal determines whether an article is consistent with the journal area of expertise and the design requirements.

3. The editor-in-chief chooses reviewers and decides whether or not to print an article.

4. The members of the editorial board and external experts, specialists in reviewed area, are involved in review.

5. If the article requires further follow-up revision, it shall be sent back to authors with comments from a reviewer or editorial board member. In the event of disagreement with the reviewer or editor, the author must substantiate his or her position. Changes made by the author shall be entered in the electronic version of the text and sent to the editors. The revised version of the article is subject to review again, and the editorial board decides on the possibility of publication. The decision of the editorial board about publication of the article or a well-founded refusal of publication is sent to the author.

6. The editorial board reserves the right to reject without reviewing articles that are not consistent with the journal area of expertise and non-compliance with the design requirements.

7. All reviews are kept in the journal for at least five years.

8. The editorial board evaluates articles based only on their scientific content, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality and political views of the authors.

Ethics of scientific publications in “Communication Studies"
Editors’ ethical principles
1. The editor of the scientific journal is responsible for the decision on publication of the submitted material. In making an objective decision on publication, the editor of the scientific journal is guided by the veracity of the information provided by the author, scientific significance and the novelty of the material under consideration.
2. The editor shall not permit to publish information if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarized.

Ethical principles of authors of scientific publications
1. An author (or the group of authors) is responsible for the novelty and validity of the scientific study results, which implies to comply with the following principles:
- authors of the article should provide reliable results of the undertaken studies (false or falsified results are unacceptable);
- authors should guarantee that the study results, reported in their manuscript, are completely original (borrowed fragments or statements must be completed with the obligatory indication of the author and source; unarranged quotes, paraphrasing or assumption of rights to the results of others’ research are unethical and unacceptable);
- authors should not submit a manuscript to the journal that is under consideration in another journal, as well as an article that is already published in another journal;
- everyone, who has made a considerable contribution to the study should be identified as co-authors of the article (it is unacceptable to identify as the co-authors persons who are not involved in the study);
- if an author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after it has been published, he or she shall inform the editorial board of the journal as soon as possible.

Reviewer’s ethical principles
1. Reviewers shall carry out a scientific investigation of the author's materials, which should be of an unbiased nature based on the following principles:
- the reviewing manuscript should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be referred for consultation or discussion to third parties that are not authorized to do so by the editorial board;
- reviewers are obliged to give an objective and well-founded evaluation of the study results; personal criticism of the author is unacceptable;
- reviewers should not use unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts for personal purposes.
2. Reviewers, who are not fully qualified, in their opinion, to evaluate the manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in case of conflict of interests with the author or organization, must inform the editor with a request to exclude them from reviewing this manuscript.


Members of the editorial board, reviewers and authors are responsible for complying with the Code of ethics for scientific publications.

Provision on the review

APPROVED By the order No. 01.10-50/150 from June 19, 2014

PROVISION ON THE REVIEW OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS ESTABLISHED BY DOSTOEVSKY OMSK STATE UNIVERSITY

1.General provisions
1.1 The present Provision determines the procedure for reviewing authors materials (manuscripts) submitted to the editorial staff of scientific periodicals established by Dostoevsky Omsk State University (hereinafter – journals).
1.2 The review is carried out in order to select the most relevant, innovative materials with scientific novelty, as well as to improve the quality of published articles and ensure a high scientific level of journals.
1.3 All materials submitted for publication in journals (scientific articles, surveys, reviews, etc.) that passed the initial verification (see item 2) are subject to review.
1.4 To review materials we invite professionals from higher education institutions, scientific and industrial organizations of the Russian Federation and foreign countries, as well as specialists in the relevant scientific field.
1.5 The following reviewing models can be used:
а) single-blind reviewing: the reviewer knows the author’s name, but the author does not know the reviewer’s name;
b) double-blind reviewing: both the reviewer and author do not know each other’s names.In each case, the reviewing model and the number of reviewers may vary.

2. Initial verification of the submitted materials
2.1 Author’s materials (manuscripts) and supporting documents (license agreement or acceptance of an offer, author’s application) prepared in accordance with the requirements established by the editorial board are sent to the editorial stuff of the journal.
2.2 The editorial board of the journal notifies authors about receiving materials within 7 days.
2.3 All materials submitted for publication are subject to initial verification for:
а) Compliance with the formal requirements for the materials published in the journal: compliance of the article with the subject (area of expertise) of the journal, the allowable content; presence of the Universal Decimal Classification and metadata (names, information about the author, abstracts, key words) both in Russian and English; accuracy of the text layout, references, tables, equations, drawings; quality of visual material.
b) Completeness and correctness of filling out of the submitted documents, including those containing information about the author (authors) and expressing the will of all co-authors to publish the material in the journal, placing its electronic version in the Russian Science Citation Index and other databases.
2.4 Initial verification is carried out by the journal editorial board within a period not exceeding 14 days from the date of receiving materials. The results of the initial verification are emailed to the authors.
2.5 Based on the results of the initial verification, the article can be accepted for consideration (with subsequent scientific review) or rejected as inconsistent with formal requirements.
2.6 In case of rejection of the submitted material, the author is sent a notification with the suggestion to eliminate inconsistencies found during the initial verification and to re-submit the materials to the editorial staff by a certain date (established in agreement with the editor-in-chief, taking into account the schedule of preparation and publication of issues).
2.7 All materials that passed the initial verification are registered in a logbook of the received materials, indicating the date of submitting a manuscript, its title, author’s (authors) full name, place of work, whereupon, they are sent for a peer review.

3. Scientific review of the submitted materials
3.1 Registered manuscripts, accepted for consideration based on the results of the initial verification, shall be emailed to reviewers of the journal by the editorial staff. The editor-in-chief of the journal approves reviewers beforehand. In this case, a reviewer is additionally notified about emailed materials.
3.2 The reviewer receives a manuscript along with a cover letter, which sets out the request of the editor-in-chief of the journal to review the material using a standard questionnaire (form) or in no particular form; the letter also contains information on the terms and conditions for scientific peer review.
3.3 The reviewer is recommended to use the specially developed form (Appendix) for the review, which must be filled out by marking a suitable answer for each of the questions with X or +. If there are any comments or a negative evaluation on any item, an explanation should be given in the appropriate box “Comments”.
3.4 The review can be made in no particular form, but has to highlight the following aspects:
- title of the manuscript, authors full name (if the reviewer knows them);
- correspondence of the article to the subject of the journal;
- vividness, clarity of the statement of the scientific problem;
- relevance, singularity and scientific (practical) significance of the study;
- theoretical and methodological basis of the research;
- reliability of the information used by the author;
- validity of the drawn conclusions;
- completeness, representativeness and correctness of references layout;
- logic of presentation;
- language and style;
- accuracy in the use of terms;
- appropriateness and accuracy of the design of figures, tables and equations;
- clarity, informative value of the article title;
- accuracy of the choice of key words;
- quality of the abstract (completeness and conciseness of the reflection of the content).
All remarks made by the reviewer should be specified, and negative assessments should be reasoned.
Based on the results of the review, the expert should make one of the following conclusions in the final part of the review:
a) the article is recommended for publication in the journal without further follow-up revision;
b) the article is recommended for publication in the journal, but subject to follow-up revision (without re-review);
c) the article is recommended for publication in the journal, but subject to follow-up revision and re-review;
d) the article is not recommended for publication in the journal.
3.5 The review should be signed and printed full name at the end as well as indicate the scientific degree, place of work and position, e-mail. All reviews are submitted to the journal editorial staff in one of the following ways:
a) given directly to the responsible secretary of the editorial staff or the editor-in-chief of the journal,
b) sent by post,
c) sent by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.
3.6 The review is carried out in accordance with the principles of scientific ethics.
3.7 The review period is established in agreement with the reviewer, but should not exceed 1 month from the receipt of the materials.
3.8 Reviewing the materials, submitted to the editorial staff of the journal, is confidential. Information on reviewers (full name, place of work, etc.) is not disclosed to authors. Experts are notified of the confidential nature of the review in the cover letter.
3.9 The reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years from the publication of the material or the rejection of the manuscript.
3.10 The editorial staff of the publication sends authors copies of the reviews or a reasoned refusal, and will also send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request.

4. Deciding on publication of the materials
4.1 After receiving reviews, the appropriateness of publishing manuscripts is being considered at a regular meeting of the editorial board. The decision of the editorial board is simply made by the majority of votes and recorded in the minutes of the meeting. When the number of votes is equal, the vote of the editor-in-chief is casting.
4.2 The editorial board decision to publish (with / without follow-up revision) or to reject the manuscript is emailed to the author within 3 working days after the meeting of the editorial board.
4.3 In case of a positive decision, the editorial board informs about admission of the material without follow-up revision for publication, indicating the issue of the journal.
4.4 If follow-up revision of the article is needed, a copy of the review (without indicating the information on the reviewer) is emailed and a deadline (no more than 2 months) is established, during which it is necessary to amend the article and re-submit it to the editorial office. If the revised manuscript is returned in violation of the deadline, the editorial board reserves the right to displace the terms of its consideration and publication in the journal.
4.5 The manuscript sent by the author to the editorial staff after the follow-up revision can be submitted by a decision of the editorial board to the second peer review to the same reviewer or some other specialist. It is allowed not more than two-fold revision of the material submitted for publication, after which the decision of the editorial board on the appropriateness of the publication of this manuscript is considered final and is brought to the attention of the author.
4.6 If a decision is made to reject the manuscript on the basis of a negative review, a copy of the review is sent to the author (without specifying the information on the reviewer) and the deadline (not more than 1 month) to challenge the reviewer's opinion by sending to the editorial staff a reasoned request to re-review the material is indicated. In this case, the editorial board considers this article again and decides on the practicability of re-reviewing. A specialist who performs an additional review of the material doesn’t know the results of the previous review. In case of the repeated negative review, the manuscript is rejected and is not subject to further consideration. This decision is considered final and is brought to the attention of the author.