Ethical norms
Position
on publishing ethics and unfair publishing practice of the Electronic Scientific Periodical Publication "Expert: The Paradigm of Legal Sciences and Public Administration"
The editorial board of the Electronic Scientific Periodical Publication "Expert: The Paradigm of Legal Sciences and Public Administration" supports the policy aimed at observing the principles of publishing ethics and recognizes that tracking compliance with the principles of publishing (editorial) ethics is one of the main components of reviewing and publishing.
1. Duties of the chief editor
1.1 Decision on the publication of the article.
The editor-in-chief of the electronic scientific periodical "Expert: Paradigms of Legal Sciences and Public Administration" is responsible for deciding which of the papers presented to the editor with publication should be published. This decision should be made on the basis of validating the work and its importance to researchers and readers. The chief editor can be guided by the methodological recommendations developed by the editorial board of the publication and such legal requirements as the prevention of libel, violation of copyright and plagiarism. Also, when deciding to publish, the editor-in-chief may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers (or representatives of the research and teaching staff).
1.2 Justice.
The editor-in-chief of the electronic scientific periodical "Expert: Paradigms of Law and Public Administration," evaluates the works presented according to their intellectual content, despite the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the author.
1.3 Confidentiality.
The editor-in-chief of the Electronic Scientific Periodical Publication "Expert: The Paradigm of Legal Sciences and Public Administration" and employees of the editorial board should not disclose information on the manuscripts submitted to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board consultants, and the publisher.
1.4 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest.
The information contained in the submitted article should not be used in any of his own works of the chief editor and members of the editorial board without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas received during the review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The editor-in-chief should refuse to participate in the review if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the article. The editor-in-chief should require all authors of the publication to provide information about their respective competing interests and publish corrections if the conflict of interest was exposed after publication. If necessary, another appropriate action may be taken, such as publishing a denial or an expression of concern.
1.5 Studying ethical complaints.
The editor-in-chief of the Electronic Scientific Periodical Publication "Expert: The Paradigm of Legal Sciences and Public Administration" should take reasonably quick measures when receiving ethical complaints about the submitted manuscript or published article, in contact with the editorial board, publisher (or the teaching staff).
2. Responsibilities of reviewers
2.1 Participation in decisions of the editorial board.
Reviewing helps the editor-in-chief when deciding to publish a work, and because of the editorial relationship with the author, can also help the author improve his work.
2.2 Efficiency.
Each selected reviewer feels his incompetence for reviewing the scientific research described in the manuscript, or knowing that his operational reviewing is impossible, should notify the editor and exclude himself from the review process.
2.3 Confidentiality.
Each manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It should not be shown or discussed with other persons except those authorized by the editor.
2.4 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest.
Unpublished information, disclosed in the submitted article, should not be used in any of the reviewer's own works without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas received during the review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer should refuse to participate in the review if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the article.
3. Responsibilities of the authors
3.1 Originality and plagiarism.
The authors of the article must ensure that they have written a completely original work, and if the authors used works and / or words of other authors, this should be appropriately noted by reference or indicated in the text. Plagiarism has many forms, from issuing someone else's work for one’s own to copying or re-informing essential parts of someone else’s work (without reference to the source), as well as to claiming the rights to the results obtained in studies carried out by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical behavior during publication and is unacceptable. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical behavior during publication and is unacceptable. The author should not submit an already published article for consideration in another journal. It is necessary 1076 "{to properly recognize the work of other researchers. Authors should provide references to publications that influenced the content of the work described.
3.2 Authorship of the work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, planning, execution, or interpretation of the described study. All individuals who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If a person has participated in any substantial part of the project, he should be thanked, or he should be included in the list of collaborators.
3.3 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest.
All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other material conflict of interest that could be regarded as an influence on the result of the evaluation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
3.4 Errors in published works.
If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, it is his duty to urgently notify the editor-in-chief of the publication about this and work with the editor-in-chief in order to publish a refutation or correction of the article. If the editor-in-chief finds out from a third party that a work has been published contains a significant error, it is the responsibility of the author to urgently refute or correct the article, or to submit to the editor-in-chief proof of the correctness of the published work.
3.5 Detection of plagiarism.
The editorial board of the Electronic Scientific Periodical Publication "Expert: The Paradigm of Legal Sciences and Public Administration" undertakes to help the scientific community in all aspects of the implementation of publishing ethics policies, especially in cases of suspicion of a duplicate article or plagiarism.
