Publication Ethics

Academic journal “Scientific Notes of the Institute of Journalism” is guided by ethical standards, recommended by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Find these standards following the link to the official COPE website: Moreover, we take into account the rules of publication ethics, recommended by the publishing house “Elsevier” – Publishing Ethics Resource Kit: We aim to unify the standards of ethical behaviour for all sides that take part in the publication process: the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the society.


The editorial office of the academic journal “Scientific Notes of the Institute of Journalism” realises its ethical and other responsibilities for published in the journal works so it controls all the stages of article acceptance. The editorial office guarantees that advertising, reprinting or other commercial benefits do not influence the editorial decisions. The editorial board will collaborate with other journals when it is useful and necessary.


The reviewing of the articles is realised to support high ethical standards of scientific researches. The reviewer should understand the requirements of scientific publications ethics, overcome possible personal bias and injustice while declining or accepting the articles; they should orient to the requirement of Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE to improve the quality of published works. The journal’s policy on the main ethical standards for the reviewers is the following:

  1. If the reviewer is not sure that their qualification corresponds the level and the area of the given research paper, they need to refuse reviewing right away.
  2. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the given article and define how its level corresponds scientific, literary, and ethical standards.
  3. The reviewer must reject selfish narrow interests and respect intellectual independence of the authors.
  4. The reviewer is not allowed to use any received arguments and conclusions of the author without their permission to insure author’s right for intellectual property.
  5. The reviewer must reject the reviewing process if a) there are professional or personal connections between the reviewer and the author, b) the results of the research in the given article contradict the reviewer’s personal developments, c) there are other aspects that can have an impact on reviewer’s judgements neutrality.
  6. The reviewer must adhere the reviewed article confidentiality which means they are not allowed to disclose information from the article or discuss not yet published author’s conclusions and recommendations with other colleagues (except when the reviewer needs someone’s special consultation which is possible only with the permission of the editor-in-chief).
  7. The reviewer must give adequate arguments when accusing in plagiarism. Any claim on plagiarism evidence in the article or incorrect citing should be accompanied with the corresponding link.
  8. If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, they must contact the editorial board to demand collective reviewing of the given article.
  9. The reviewer should notice any cases of insufficient citing of other scientific works of the same area of studies. However, the remarks on insufficient citing of the reviewer’s works is considered biased.
  10. The reviewer must provide the article review on time to insure the academic journal publishing periodicity.
  11. The reviewer must respect the article author. For showing lack of respect, for systematic providing of low-quality reviews or in case of multiple deadline violations. The editorial office stops relations with the reviewer.
  12. The reviewer is not allowed to use or disclose any non-published information or arguments of the author. However, if the reviewer decides to terminate some of their own researches which, in their opinion, become ineffective due to the reviewed article information, it is not considered the violation of ethical standards.


  1. Publication decision. The editor-in-chief of the academic journal “Scientific Notes of the Institute of Journalism” is responsible for articles selection for publishing. The relevance of the topic and its importance for the researchers and readers are the main criteria which impact the publication decision. In their decisions, the editorial board and the editor-in-chief adhere to the regulations which forbid plagiarism and authorship violations. The editor-in-chief can consult other members of the editorial board to make decisions.
  2. Fair game principle. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board must assess the manuscripts according to their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, ethnical origin, nationality or political views of the author.
  3. Confidentiality. The editor-in-chief and editorial office workers do not have the rights to disclose information about received works to anyone except the authors, reviewers or other editorial consultants.
  4. Information disclosure and conflicts of interest. Non-published data from the manuscripts should not be used in editor’s own researches without the written permission of the author. The information or the ideas, obtained during reviewing, should be confidential and not used for personal benefit. The editor-in-chief must reject reviewing of the article which has the conflict of interest (competitors, collaboration or other relations with one of the authors, companies, institutions, connected with the applied manuscript). In this case, the editor-in-chief must assign their deputy or other member of editorial board to review the article instead of them. The editor-in-chief must demand the disclosure of interest conflicts from all process participants as well as publication of the corrections when conflicts of interests were noticed after the publication. If it is necessary, it is possible to the other actions e.g. publication of refutation or apology.
  5. Participation and collaboration in the investigation. When applying ethical claim on the given manuscript or published article, the editor-in-chief must take the following objective actions: contact the author, the proper consideration of the respective complaint or claim. If necessary, it is possible to contact respective institutions or organisations. If the complaint is reasonable, it is necessary to publish the correction, the refutation or the apology. Every case of unethical behaviour should be considered even if the information about it was received years after the publication.


  1. Reports standards. The authors of the articles must provide an accurate report about completed work based on the results of the original research as well as objectively report on its meaning. The core data of the research must be reported in the written form. The article must contain an efficient amount of information and the link to the original sources which will give the readers an opportunity to find the given article. Untrue or intentionally inaccurate claims are unacceptable and are equated to unethical behaviour. The reviewing of the articles and special publication must be accurate and objective as well and the author’s opinion on them should be clearly specified and separated.
  2. The access to the output data and its preservation. The authors can be asked to provide the output data from the article for editorial analysis of this data. The authors must be ready to provide a free access to this data if it is possible. The authors must save this data during some time after the publication.
  3. Originality and plagiarism. The authors must apply only fully original works. In case of using other works and/or quotes of other people, the authors must appropriately cite those works. There are different forms of plagiarism e.g. publishing someone’s article as their own, copying or rewriting of a significant part of someone’s text (without citing), appropriation of the research results obtained by someone else. The plagiarism in all its forms is considered unethical and inappropriate.
  4. Multiple, repeated or competitive publications. The author must not publish the same or similar article in one or several academic journals. Applying the article to more than one journal at the same time is considered unethical and inappropriate. The author must not apply for consideration previously published articles.
  5. The sources confirmation. The authors must clearly present the works of other authors. It is always necessary to give the links to publications which significantly influenced the essence of author’s article. The information, obtained personally (through discussion, correspondence or discussion with third parties), is not allowed to be used without the written permission of the source. The information, obtained while providing/getting confidential services (judicial acts or grant applications), is not allowed to be used without the written permission of the service provider.
  6. Authorship. The amount of the authors must be limited with those people who made a significant contribution into the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the research. Everyone, who significantly contributed, must be listed as co-authors. Those, who took part in some essential aspects of the research, must be listed as project participants. The author must guarantee that all the co-authors are listed in the article and there are no individuals who are not the co-authors; all the co-authors are familiar with the final version of the research paper and approved it as well as agreed to publish it.
  7. Threats and usage of people or animals. If the article/work involves any physical processes or equipment, which greatly threats the health of humans or animals, the author must clarify this in their work. If the works assumes usage of animals or humans as examinees, the author must guarantee that the work was conducted according to the respective laws and institutional principles as well as respective institutions improvement. The author’s article must contain the application and the confirmation from the respective institutions about the permission for experiments with humans. The human right for confidentiality must be always adhered.
  8. Information disclosure and conflicts of interest. In their works, all authors must disclose the information about any financial or other vital conflicts of interest which can impact the research results or their interpretation. All sources of financial support must be disclosed. The examples of possible conflicts of interest which should be disclosed: employer information, consultations, shareholding, fees, expert fees, patent applications/registrations as well as grants and other types of financing. All potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed on the earliest stages.
  9. Significant errors in published works. If the author notices a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, he must immediately inform the editor-in-chief and help the editorial office to eliminate or correct the mistakes. If the editor finds out from the third party that the published work contains errors, the author must immediately eliminate or correct them or provide the evidence of data accuracy to the editorial office.