Ethics in Academic Publishing
The Editorial Board and the Council of Editors of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” operates in adherence with the principles of ethics in research and publication, devised on the basis of international standards, declarations, guidelines, codes and other documents formulated by reputable international committees, journals and publishing companies.
This section has been built upon the guidelines prepared by Elsevier, a publishing company specializing in scientific and medical content (https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/856659/Ethics-in-Research-and-Publication-March-2019.pdf), and by the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf).
Key terms and definitions used in this section:
Ethics in academic publishing is a system of norms of professional conduct in the context of relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers involved in the process of creation, distribution and use of scientific publications.
Author is an individual or a group of individuals (collective authorship) who made a significant contribution into the research and publication of its results.
Editor-in-Chief is an individual who is responsible for final decisions concerning development, production and publication of a journal.
Publisher is a legal or natural person who fulfills the function of issuing a scientific publication.
Research article is a completed and published author’s work.
Plagiarism is an intentional appropriation of the authorship of someone else’s research work or work of art, ideas or inventions. Plagiarism can violate author’s rights and infringe regulations related to intellectual property and patent law, and therefore can entail legal liability.
Assistant Editor is a representative of a scientific journal or a publishing company whose responsibility is to prepare manuscripts for publication and to maintain and coordinate communication with authors, reviewers and readers of scientific publications.
Editorial Board is an advisory body comprised of competent and credible individuals, which assists the Chief Editor in matters of selection, preparation and assessment of the works intended for publishing.
Reviewer is an expert who acts on behalf of a scientific journal or a publishing company and conducts scientific examination of an author’s manuscript with the purpose of evaluating its suitability for publication.
Manuscript is an author’s work that is submitted to the Editorial Board and has yet to be published.
Reader is any individual familiarized with the published material.
1.1. Publication of articles in peer-reviewed journals is a simple mode of scientific communication that greatly facilitates the development of the respective field of scientific knowledge. Standards for ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publishing process, namely, Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Community, are an important component in the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” operation.
1.2. The Publisher does not only maintain scientific communication and greatly invests in that process, but also takes responsibility for following all current recommendations for the published work.
1.3. The Publisher assumes all responsibility for close oversight of scientific materials, presenting an impartial “report” on evolution of scientific thought and research, and, as a consequence, the Publisher should also be aware of responsibility for appropriate presentation of these “reports”, especially in view of ethical consideration of publishing practice, expounded in this document.
2. Responsibilities of the Editors
2.1. Decision on publication
The final decision whether to publish a certain manuscript in the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” is made by the Editor-in-Chief. This decision should be premised on the notion of validity of the work under consideration and its scientific merit. The Editor-in-Chief abides by the policy of the Editorial Board (http://journal.azniirkh.ru/zhurnal_vodnye_bioresursy_i_sreda_obitanija/redkollegija/) and the Council of Science Editors of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment”, and is bound by current legal requirements concerning libel, author rights, legitimacy, and plagiarism.
During the decision-making process pertaining to publication, the Editor-in-Chief can consult with the members of the Editorial Board, Council of Science Editors and Reviewers (or members of the Scientific Community in their official capacity).
The Editors should assess intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual preferences, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political stance of the Authors.
The Editors and the Editorial Board of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” are bound by an obligation to not disclose the information on the accepted manuscript to any person beside the Authors, Reviewers, prospective Reviewers, other scientific advisors, and the Publisher, unless it is absolutely necessary.
2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data, acquired from the manuscripts submitted for consideration, cannot be used in personal research without the Author’s written consent. Information or ideas that came up in the course of peer-reviewing process and are associated with prospective benefits should remain confidential and are not to be used for any personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from consideration of the manuscripts (namely, to ask other members of the Editorial Board to assess the manuscript instead of reviewing it and deciding upon it personally) in the case when a conflict of interests is present due to relationships and interactions of competitive, cooperative or other similar nature with the Authors, institutions and, possibly, other organizations associated with the manuscript.
2.5. Oversight of publications
The Editor, who provided a solid evidence that assumptions or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous, should inform the Publisher (and/or relevant Scientific Сommunity) to expedite the сorrective actions, such as introduction of changes, publication withdrawal, express of concern and other similar measures warranted by the situation.
2.6. Journal self-citation and citing other sources
The Editors of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” do not compel the Authors to cite it in their works. The Editorial Board assures that any recommendations concerning the sources to be cited in the article are given for the benefit of the final publication. As a part of the peer-review process, the Editors direct the Authors to relevant literature. There are no prescriptions as for citing specific journals.
2.7. Involvement and cooperation in research
The Editor in concert with the Publisher (or the Scientific Community) take appropriate response measures in the cases when various ethical grievances concerning the manuscript under consideration or published materials arise. Such measures, in general, involve communication with the Authors of the manuscript and substantiation of the respective complaint or claim; however, they can also entail contacting the relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of the Reviewers
3.1. Influencing the decisions of the Editorial Board
Peer-review process helps the Editor to make a decision whether to publish an article and, through cooperation with the Authors, prospectively help the Author improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a crucial step in formal scientific communication which lies at the core of the scientific approach. The Publisher holds view that all scholars who want to contribute to the publication should make a considerable contribution into the peer-reviewing process as well.
Any chosen Reviewer, who feels that they lack relevant expertise to consider the manuscript or do not possess time adequate for the prompt performance of their duty, should inform the Editor of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresouces & Environment” and request their exclusion from the reviewing process of the said manuscript.
Any manuscript accepted for reviewing should be treated as a confidential document. This manuscript should not be opened or discussed with any individuals not authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity
The Reviewer lays under obligation to give their objective assessment. Any personal criticism toward the Author is unacceptable. The Reviewer’s opinion should be well-reasoned and stated clearly.
3.5. Acknowledgment of sources
The Reviewers should identify prominent published works pertaining to the subject matter of the manuscript and not included into its referenced sources. For each statement (observation, conclusion or contention), which was previously published, the manuscript should present the corresponding citation and bibliographic reference. The Reviewer should also draw the Editor’s attention to the cases when a considerable similarity exists between the reviewed manuscript and any other published work known to the Reviewer as a part of their scientific competence and expertise.
3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data, acquired from the manuscripts submitted for consideration, cannot be used in personal research without the Author’s written consent. Information or ideas that came up in the course of peer-reviewing process and are associated with prospective benefits should remain confidential and are not to be used for any personal gain.
3.6.2. The Reviewers should abstain from consideration of the manuscript, when a conflict of interests is present due to relationships and interactions of competitive, cooperative or other similar nature with any of the Authors, institutions and other organizations associated with the submitted work.
4. Responsibilities of the Authors
4.1. Requirements for the manuscripts
4.1.1 The Authors of a report of the original research should present credible results of their work, as well as non-biased discussion of the significance of their research. The data, on which their report is based, should be error-free and presented accurately. The work should provide enough details and references for its prospective reproduction and verification. False and consciously erroneous statements should be considered unethical and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and research articles should also be accurate and objective; the stance of the Editorial Board should be clearly stated.
4.2. Data accessibility and data storage
The Authors can be requested to provide the Editors with the raw data related to the manuscript for consideration. The Authors should be prepared to make such information available free of charge (according to ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases – https://www.stm-assoc.org/2006_06_01_STM_ALPSP_Data_Statement.pdf), whenever possible, and to preserve the said data for reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 The Authors should ensure that the work they submit for consideration is fully original and, whenever any other Author’s work or statement is used, should provide corresponding bibliographical references or citations.
4.3.2. Plagiarism exists in many forms: starting from the presenting someone else’s work as the Author’s own, through copying or paraphrasing of substantial parts of someone else’s work (without acknowledging the original source), to claims of the Author’s rights for the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism of any kind is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, redundant and simultaneous publications
4.4.1 As a general rule, the Author should not publish the manuscript based on the results of the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is seen as unethical conduct and is not acceptable.
4.4.2. As a general rule, the Author should not submit for consideration the manuscript that has been already published in another journal.
4.4.3. Publishing articles of a certain type (for instance, translated articles) in more than one journal can be ethical in some cases, if specific conditions are met. The Authors and Editors of the concerned journals should give their consent for repeated publication that has to present the same data and interpretations as its initially published iteration. The sources referenced in the primary publication should be also present in the secondary one.
4.5. Acknowledgment of sources
It is imperative to acknowledge the contribution of other people. The Authors should state all the sources pertaining to the work they conducted and submitted for consideration. The data acquired privately—for example, during a conversation, oral or written, or in the course of discussion with the third party—should not be used or presented without clear written consent of the original informant. The information obtained from confidential sources, such as reviewing manuscripts or giving grant funding, should not be used without clear written consent of the Authors of the work associated with those confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of the publication
4.6.1. Only the individuals who made a considerable contribution into conception and development of the work, or the research itself and its interpretation, should be designated as the Authors or Co-Authors. When the research participants made an especially substantial contribution to the research project in a specific area of competence, they should be credited as such.
4.6.2. The Author should ensure that all participants who made a considerable contribution into the research are credited as Co-Authors, and there are no people who have not been involved in the research among them; the Author should also ensure that all Co-Authors have seen the final version of the work, given their approval and consented to its submission for publication.
4.7. Potential risks
If the research involves using chemicals, practices or equipment which can be hazardous or pose a risk during their operation, the Author should expressly state it in the manuscript.
4.8. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
4.8.1 In their manuscripts, all Authors should disclose financial or other existing conflicts of interest that can be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are subject to obligatory disclosure, include consulting activities, receiving bounties or professional fees, providing expert evaluations, application for a patent or its registration, or other types of funding involved. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Major errors in the published works
In the event that the Author finds any major errors or inaccuracies in the publication, they should inform the Editor of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” and act with the joint purpose of its prompt withdrawal or elimination of the errors. If the Editor or Publisher is informed of the presence of major errors by the third party, the Author should retract the work and make necessary corrections as soon as possible.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
5.1 The Publisher should adhere to the principles and practices facilitating ethical conduct of the Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” in accordance with these guidelines.
5.2. The Publisher should lend assistance to the Editor of the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment” in the matters of handling the complaints regarding the ethical component of published materials and facilitate cooperation with other journals and/or publishing companies, if it is conducive for the Editor’s performance of their duties.
5.3. The Publisher should facilitate good research practice and implement industry-specific standards or codes of conduct with the purpose of elaboration of ethical recommendations and the procedures of withdrawal and error-correction.
5.4 If circumstances require, the Publisher should arrange for the appropriate specialized legal support (legal opinion or counselling).
This section has been built upon the guidelines prepared by Elsevier, a publishing company specializing in scientific and medical content (https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/856659/Ethics-in-Research-and-Publication-March-2019.pdf), and by the International Committee on Publication Ethics, or COPE (https://publicationethics.org/).
Establisher: FSBSI “Azov Sea Research Fisheries Institute” (since 16.01.2019, the Azov-Black Sea Branch of the FSBSI “VNIRO” (“AzNIIRKH”); since 05.12.2019, Establisher: Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Russian Federal Research Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography”)
Publication in the Journal for postgraduate students is free of charge.
Price of the Journal is unregulated.
Policy of online publishing for preprints and postprints:
As part of the submission process, the Author should confirm that the article has not been published or accepted for publishing by any other scientific journal. Upon referring to the article published in the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment”, the Publisher requests to share the link (full URL of the material) to the official website of the Journal.
The Articles published online on personal or public websites, not associated with other publishing companies, are eligible for submission and consideration.
Reuse of information and plagiarism
Plagiarism in the manuscripts, submitted to the Journal “Aquatic Bioresources & Environment”, is not acceptable. The author is responsible for the originality of the work. Originality of the manuscript should be no less than 75%. While considering the article, the Editorial Board can run an originality check on the submitted material, using AntiPlagiat service.
As the plagiarism, the following should be considered:
1. copying the text from other sources without acknowledging its authorship;
2. reproducing the ideas, images or data from other sources without acknowledging their authorship;
3. recycling the Author’s own published works (Section “Materials and Methods” being the only exception);
4. using and reformulating the ideas derived from other sources without acknowledging their authorship.
If the evidence of plagiarism has come to light during the peer-review process, the manuscript can be rejected. In the case of multiple instances of information reuse, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/).