Финно-угорский мир Облака
На главную Карта сайта Написать e-mail ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫЕ
«ФИННО-УГОРСКИЙ МИР» О проекте Вопросы-ответы Предложения
Publication Ethics


1.1. These guidelines set standards of ethical conduct for the parties involved in the publication: authors, editors, reviewers and a publisher, and include the rules of decency, privacy, supervision of publications and resolution of possible conflicts of interests.

1.2. The editorial board of the journal Yezhegodnic Finno-Ugorskikh Issledovanii complies with ethical norms adopted by the international academic community, and makes every effort to prevent any violations of these rules. In this they are guided by the provisions of Chapter 70 «Copyright» of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. These guidelines are based on the recommendations and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as on valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers, and include ethical standards applicable to the authors, reviewers and editors.


2.1. The standard for accessing and storing the source data of research. The author is obliged to submit research materials (data) at the request of the editorial board, and should be prepared to provide public access to them. The author should retain the data for at least five years after the publication for its possible reproduction and verification.

2.2. The standard of originality (inadmissibility of plagiarism and self-plagiarism). By submitting a manuscript to the journal Yearbook of Finno-Ugric Studies, its author(s) must ensure that it is his/her/their own original manuscript, and that it has never and nowhere been published and is not being considered for publication at the moment. If the author (s) used in the article the work of other persons or included excerpts from works (citation) of other persons, then such use shall be duly formalized by indicating the original source in the bibliography attached to the article. Plagiarism, as well as self-plagiarism, in any form is a non-ethical and unacceptable behavior of the author.

2.3. The standard of reliability of the results of academic research. Authors must provide reliable research results. The results should be stated correctly and objectively. Deceptively false or fabricated statements are unacceptable.

2.4. The standard of singularity of publication. The author presents to the editorial board the manuscript, not previously published and not submitted to other journals. Submission of a manuscript to multiple journals is unethical and unacceptable. The same applies to the translation of an article in a foreign language.

2.5. The standard of sources verification. The author agrees to correctly indicate in the bibliography the scientific and other sources that were used during the study and had a significant impact on the results of the study.

2.6. The standard of the authorship of a manuscript. Authorship should be limited to those persons who have made significant contributions to the conception, planning and execution or interpretation of the described research. All persons who have made significant contributions to the published work should be listed as co-authors. If a person has been involved in a substantial part of the project, he or she needs to be appreciated, or should be listed as the person who contributed to this study. The author is obliged to indicate all co-authors who meet these requirements and not to specify co-authors who do not meet these requirements, and to ensure that the final version of the paper and its submission for publication has been approved by all co-authors.

2.7. The standard for disclosing the conflict of interests on the part of the author. All authors must agree to submit the manuscript for publication, and are required to disclose in it any potential conflict of interests — financial or professional — which could be interpreted as affecting the results of the assessment of the manuscript. The conflict of interests must be specified in the text with the author’s explanations on the matter. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed and indicated in the manuscript.

2.8. The standard for error correction in the published papers. If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, his/her duty is to immediately notify the editor or publisher of this and to co-operate with the editor to publish a retraction or correction of the article. If the editorial board recognizes an error from third parties, the author is obliged to remove the error immediately or to provide evidences of its absence.


3.1. The standard of a reviewer’s contribution to editorial decisions. An expert’s assessment of a manuscript promotes the adoption of editorial decisions, as well as helps the author to improve his/her manuscript. The decision to accept a manuscript for publication, return it to the author for revision or reject it, is made by the editorial board on the basis of the results of the review.

3.2. The standard of a reviewer’s qualification. A reviewer must have the necessary skills to assess the manuscript. The reviewer, who believes that he/she is not competent for the material matters, must renounce reviewing.

3.3. The standard of review terms. The reviewer must provide a review within the time specified by the editorial board. It is assumed that reviewers, taking manuscripts for consideration, will be able to provide their results not later than in four weeks. If the assessment of a manuscript cannot be made in time, the reviewer must notify about the impossibility of reviewing the manuscript.

3.4. The standard of confidentiality on the part of a reviewer. Confidential information and ideas gathered by the reviewers from the submitted manuscript are not subject to disclosure or usage for personal purposes. Any manuscript received for review must be seen as a confidential document. The works are not subject to the demonstration and discussion with other people, except those who have been authorized by chief editors of the journal Yearbook of Finno-Ugric Studies.

3.5. The standard of review objectivity. Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism towards the author is not acceptable. Reviewers are obliged to express their views clearly and fortify them with relevant arguments and rigorous referencing to authoritative sources.

3.6. The standard of sources confirmation. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that correspond to the subject matter and are not included in the manuscript bibliography, and indicate fragments of the manuscript that do not have links to the original source. Reviewers should pay attention to the detection of substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other known published work. They must also inform the editor of any doubts arising in respect of ethical acceptability of the research in the manuscript.

3.7. The standard for disclosing a conflict of interests. The reviewer is obliged to abandon the consideration of a manuscript in case of a conflict of interests (for example, due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies and other organizations associated with the presented work).


4.1. The standard for decision making to publish the article. Chief editors of the journal Yearbook of Finno-Ugric Studies are responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers should be published or refused for publication. The decisions are made on the basis of the results of checks for compliance with the requirements for registration and the results of the review. Works are admitted solely on the basis of their academic value. When deciding to publish the manuscript, the editors are guided by the policy of the journal and do not permit the publication of articles with signs of defamation, insult, plagiarism or copyright violation.

4.2. The standard of authors’ equality. The editorial board evaluates only the intellectual content of a manuscript, regardless of race, nationality, origin, citizenship (patriality), sex, occupation, place of work or residence of the author, as well as of his/her political, philosophical, religious or other views.

4.3. The standard of confidentiality. Editors must not disclose information about the sub-mitted manuscript to anyone else, except the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, consultants of the editorial board and the publisher. In addition, editors should make every effort to ensure anonymity of peer review, i.e. should not disclose the names of the manuscript reviewers to the authors.

4.4. The standard for disclosing a conflict of interests on the part of the editorial board. The editorial board guaranties that the material of the manuscript, deflected from publication, will not be used by the members of the editorial board in their own works without the written consent of the author.

The Chief Editor must ask all authors to provide information about the presence of a conflict of interests and publish corrections, if any will be detected after publication. If necessary, the Chief Editor can perform other actions, such as publication of refutation or expression of concern.

4.5. The standard for citing the issue in which the work is published. The editorial board must not force authors to quote this or that work as a necessary condition for the adoption of the manuscript for publication. Any of the recommendations for citing works should be based on their academic importance and should be aimed at improving the material presented. Members of the editorial board may recommend the authors some sources as part of the review process, but such recommendations cannot be reduced to the compulsory citation.