Religion and World
Scientific journal
For authors
Information for authors planning to publish scientific materials in the journal.
01 /INFORMATION FOR THE AUTHOR
Procedure for submitting and reviewing manuscripts
The scientific journal “Religion and the World” accepts original scientific articles that correspond to the publication’s thematic focus and meet the requirements for manuscript formatting established by the editorial board.
By submitting a manuscript to the editorial board, the author confirms that they have read the journal’s editorial policy and the requirements for article formatting. The procedure for concluding a licensing agreement is determined by its terms and the current legislation of the Russian Federation.
The author guarantees the accuracy of the information provided, the originality of the research, the correct use and citation of scientific sources, and compliance with copyright and the principles of publication ethics. If significant violations of publication ethics are detected after the article has been published, the editorial board has the right to initiate the procedure for its withdrawal (retraction) in accordance with the established procedure.
Submission of manuscripts
Manuscripts are submitted to the journal’s editorial office in electronic form at the following address: info@christianworld.ru.
The editorial board confirms receipt of the submitted materials. Each manuscript is registered with the date of receipt, the title of the article, the surname, first name and patronymic of the author (authors), place of work, email address and contact phone number.
Previously unpublished scientific materials containing the results of independent research and corresponding to the scientific profile of the journal are accepted for consideration.
The submitted manuscript must not be simultaneously under review by the editorial offices of other scientific publications.
Requirements for submitted materials
The volume of a scientific article, including tables, notes, and the list of references, must be from 20,000 to 40,000 characters with spaces (no more than 6,000 words).
The manuscript must be formatted in accordance with the requirements for articles published on the journal’s official website.
The text must be at least 80 % original according to the results of a check in the “Antiplagiat” system. At the same time, the editorial board evaluates not only the quantitative indicator of originality but also the nature of the identified borrowings, the correctness of citations, and compliance with the norms of scientific ethics.
Plagiarism, appropriation of the results of other people’s research, use of borrowed materials without proper references, as well as distortion of scientific data and research results are not allowed.
Manuscript review and peer review.
All submitted materials undergo a preliminary editorial review to ensure they are consistent with the journal’s subject matter, formatting requirements, and principles of publication ethics.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary review are sent for scientific peer review. The journal uses a double‑blind peer‑review procedure involving two independent specialists in the relevant scientific field.
Based on the review results, the editorial board decides whether to accept the article for publication, whether it needs to be revised, or whether it should be rejected.
If revision is required, the author is sent the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Submitting a revised version of the manuscript does not guarantee its subsequent publication.
The final decision on publication is made by the journal’s editorial board, taking into account the review results, the scientific significance of the research, and the manuscript’s compliance with the publication’s editorial policy.
The scientific journal “Religion and the World” accepts original scientific articles that correspond to the publication’s thematic focus and meet the requirements for manuscript formatting established by the editorial board.
By submitting a manuscript to the editorial board, the author confirms that they have read the journal’s editorial policy and the requirements for article formatting. The procedure for concluding a licensing agreement is determined by its terms and the current legislation of the Russian Federation.
The author guarantees the accuracy of the information provided, the originality of the research, the correct use and citation of scientific sources, and compliance with copyright and the principles of publication ethics. If significant violations of publication ethics are detected after the article has been published, the editorial board has the right to initiate the procedure for its withdrawal (retraction) in accordance with the established procedure.
Submission of manuscripts
Manuscripts are submitted to the journal’s editorial office in electronic form at the following address: info@christianworld.ru.
The editorial board confirms receipt of the submitted materials. Each manuscript is registered with the date of receipt, the title of the article, the surname, first name and patronymic of the author (authors), place of work, email address and contact phone number.
Previously unpublished scientific materials containing the results of independent research and corresponding to the scientific profile of the journal are accepted for consideration.
The submitted manuscript must not be simultaneously under review by the editorial offices of other scientific publications.
Requirements for submitted materials
The volume of a scientific article, including tables, notes, and the list of references, must be from 20,000 to 40,000 characters with spaces (no more than 6,000 words).
The manuscript must be formatted in accordance with the requirements for articles published on the journal’s official website.
The text must be at least 80 % original according to the results of a check in the “Antiplagiat” system. At the same time, the editorial board evaluates not only the quantitative indicator of originality but also the nature of the identified borrowings, the correctness of citations, and compliance with the norms of scientific ethics.
Plagiarism, appropriation of the results of other people’s research, use of borrowed materials without proper references, as well as distortion of scientific data and research results are not allowed.
Manuscript review and peer review.
All submitted materials undergo a preliminary editorial review to ensure they are consistent with the journal’s subject matter, formatting requirements, and principles of publication ethics.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary review are sent for scientific peer review. The journal uses a double‑blind peer‑review procedure involving two independent specialists in the relevant scientific field.
Based on the review results, the editorial board decides whether to accept the article for publication, whether it needs to be revised, or whether it should be rejected.
If revision is required, the author is sent the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Submitting a revised version of the manuscript does not guarantee its subsequent publication.
The final decision on publication is made by the journal’s editorial board, taking into account the review results, the scientific significance of the research, and the manuscript’s compliance with the publication’s editorial policy.
02 / REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLES
1. General requirements
Manuscripts must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format (*.doc, *.docx).
The length of the article, including tables, notes, and the list of references, should be between 20,000 and 40,000 characters with spaces (no more than 6,000 words).
The author is responsible for the accuracy of the information provided, compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the correctness of citations, and the absence of materials of an extremist nature in the text.
The use of materials that violate the legislation of the Russian Federation is not permitted. When mentioning organizations whose activities are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to indicate their status in accordance with the current legislation.
The length of the article, including tables, notes, and the list of references, should be between 20,000 and 40,000 characters with spaces (no more than 6,000 words).
The author is responsible for the accuracy of the information provided, compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the correctness of citations, and the absence of materials of an extremist nature in the text.
The use of materials that violate the legislation of the Russian Federation is not permitted. When mentioning organizations whose activities are prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to indicate their status in accordance with the current legislation.
2. Technical design
The article text is formatted in the Microsoft Word editor with the following parameters:
· Times New Roman font;
· font size — 12 pt;
· line spacing — 1.5;
· margins on all sides — 2 cm;
· paragraph indentation — 1.25 cm;
· pages must be numbered;
· the page number is placed in the bottom right corner.
The UDC code is indicated before the article title.
The title of the article is placed in the center of the page in bold font and should not exceed 12 words.
After the title, using left alignment, provide information about the author(s), with each piece of information on a separate line:
· last name, first name, and patronymic;
· place of work;
· position;
· academic degree and academic title (if available);
· city and country;
· email address;
· ORCID (if available).
· Times New Roman font;
· font size — 12 pt;
· line spacing — 1.5;
· margins on all sides — 2 cm;
· paragraph indentation — 1.25 cm;
· pages must be numbered;
· the page number is placed in the bottom right corner.
The UDC code is indicated before the article title.
The title of the article is placed in the center of the page in bold font and should not exceed 12 words.
After the title, using left alignment, provide information about the author(s), with each piece of information on a separate line:
· last name, first name, and patronymic;
· place of work;
· position;
· academic degree and academic title (if available);
· city and country;
· email address;
· ORCID (if available).
3. The structure of the article
The following structure is recommended:
· title;
· author details;
· abstract;
· keywords;
· the previous four items are repeated in English;
· introduction;
· materials and methods of research;
· research results and discussion;
· conclusion;
· list of references;
· references.
It is permissible to use other subheadings if this is justified by the specifics of the research.
In the introduction, it is necessary to substantiate the relevance of the topic and define the goal and objectives of the study.
The main part describes the research methodology, the material under analysis, and the obtained results.
In the conclusion, the main conclusions and possible directions for further research are formulated.
· title;
· author details;
· abstract;
· keywords;
· the previous four items are repeated in English;
· introduction;
· materials and methods of research;
· research results and discussion;
· conclusion;
· list of references;
· references.
It is permissible to use other subheadings if this is justified by the specifics of the research.
In the introduction, it is necessary to substantiate the relevance of the topic and define the goal and objectives of the study.
The main part describes the research methodology, the material under analysis, and the obtained results.
In the conclusion, the main conclusions and possible directions for further research are formulated.
4. Abstract and keywords
The article must include:
· the title of the article in Russian and English;
· an abstract in Russian and English;
· keywords in Russian and English.
The abstract should be 150–200 words long.
The abstract should reflect the purpose of the study, the methods used, the main results, and the conclusions.
The number of keywords should be between 5 and 10.
· the title of the article in Russian and English;
· an abstract in Russian and English;
· keywords in Russian and English.
The abstract should be 150–200 words long.
The abstract should reflect the purpose of the study, the methods used, the main results, and the conclusions.
The number of keywords should be between 5 and 10.
5. Formatting of references and the bibliography
All quotes and borrowings must be accompanied by references to the source.
References are formatted in square brackets:
[1]
[1, p. 25]
[1, p. 25; 5, p. 17]
When quoting directly, the source page must be indicated.
Notes and the bibliography are formatted in accordance with the requirements of GOST R 7.0.5–2008 “Bibliographic reference. General requirements and rules for compilation.”
References are formatted in square brackets:
[1]
[1, p. 25]
[1, p. 25; 5, p. 17]
When quoting directly, the source page must be indicated.
Notes and the bibliography are formatted in accordance with the requirements of GOST R 7.0.5–2008 “Bibliographic reference. General requirements and rules for compilation.”
6. List of literature
The list of references should contain all the sources used in the preparation of the article. The editorial board recommends that it include relevant scientific publications reflecting the current state of the problem under study.
The bibliographic description of each source must contain mandatory information: the surname and initials of the author(s), title, place of publication, publisher, year of publication, total number of pages. If available, information about the editor, compiler, translator, as well as the name of the publication series is indicated. The areas of the bibliographic description are separated by a "dot" sign.
Electronic resources are included in the general list of literature on a common basis — by the author’s surname or the title of the publication. For each electronic source, the electronic address (URL) and the date of access to the resource must be indicated.
The bibliographic description of each source must contain mandatory information: the surname and initials of the author(s), title, place of publication, publisher, year of publication, total number of pages. If available, information about the editor, compiler, translator, as well as the name of the publication series is indicated. The areas of the bibliographic description are separated by a "dot" sign.
Electronic resources are included in the general list of literature on a common basis — by the author’s surname or the title of the publication. For each electronic source, the electronic address (URL) and the date of access to the resource must be indicated.
7. Example of formatting
Vasiliev V.V. Unknown Hume // Voprosy Filosofii. 2014. No. 1. Pp. 127–139. URL: http://vphil.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=884&Itemid=52 (accessed: 12.06.2014).
After the list of references, the References section must be provided, formatted in Latin script.
For transliteration, it is recommended to use the service: https://translit.ru
After the list of references, the References section must be provided, formatted in Latin script.
For transliteration, it is recommended to use the service: https://translit.ru
8. Tables and illustrations
All tables must have a serial number and a title. Each table must be referenced in the article text.
Illustrations (drawings, diagrams, charts, graphs, photographs) must be submitted as separate files. File format: TIFF or JPG. Image resolution: 200–300 dpi. Color mode: GRAYSCALE.
Placing graphic files inside a Word text file is not allowed.
Each illustration must be referenced in the article text.
Illustrations (drawings, diagrams, charts, graphs, photographs) must be submitted as separate files. File format: TIFF or JPG. Image resolution: 200–300 dpi. Color mode: GRAYSCALE.
Placing graphic files inside a Word text file is not allowed.
Each illustration must be referenced in the article text.
03 / Reviewing
1. General provisions
1.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Religion and the World” undergo preliminary editorial review, a check for the presence of unjustified borrowings using the “Antiplagiat” system, and mandatory scientific peer review.
1.2. When assessing the results of the plagiarism check, the editorial board takes into account the specifics of the relevant field of scientific knowledge, the nature of the sources used, the presence of properly formatted quotations, the consistency of scientific terminology, and other objectively identifiable textual similarities.
1.3. The manuscript must comply with the journal’s scientific profile and the current requirements for article formatting. Materials that do not meet the journal’s subject matter or the established requirements may be rejected at the preliminary editorial review stage without being sent for peer review. The author is notified of the decision and the reasons for the rejection.
1.2. When assessing the results of the plagiarism check, the editorial board takes into account the specifics of the relevant field of scientific knowledge, the nature of the sources used, the presence of properly formatted quotations, the consistency of scientific terminology, and other objectively identifiable textual similarities.
1.3. The manuscript must comply with the journal’s scientific profile and the current requirements for article formatting. Materials that do not meet the journal’s subject matter or the established requirements may be rejected at the preliminary editorial review stage without being sent for peer review. The author is notified of the decision and the reasons for the rejection.
2. Review procedure
2.1. The manuscripts that have passed the preliminary editorial review are sent to two independent reviewers, whose professional competence corresponds to the subject of the submitted research.
2.2. The reviewers are experts on the subject of the reviewed manuscript and have scientific publications on the relevant issues published within the last three years.
2.3. The journal Religion and Peace uses double-blind peer review: The author is not provided with information about the reviewers, and the reviewers are not provided with information about the author(s) of the manuscript. Interaction between the authors and the reviewers is carried out exclusively through the journal’s editorial office.
2.4. To ensure anonymity, before sending the manuscript for review, the editorial office removes from the text and accompanying materials any information that could directly identify the author(s).
2.5. Each of the two reviewers conducts an independent review of the manuscript and submits a separate conclusion to the editorial office.
2.6. In the event of a significant discrepancy between the conclusions of two reviewers, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript to a third independent reviewer. The decision on further consideration of the manuscript is made taking into account all the expert opinions received.
2.7. The manuscript submitted for review is confidential material and an object of the author’s intellectual property. Reviewers do not have the right to transfer it to third parties, copy it, distribute it, or use the unpublished materials contained in it for their own purposes.
2.2. The reviewers are experts on the subject of the reviewed manuscript and have scientific publications on the relevant issues published within the last three years.
2.3. The journal Religion and Peace uses double-blind peer review: The author is not provided with information about the reviewers, and the reviewers are not provided with information about the author(s) of the manuscript. Interaction between the authors and the reviewers is carried out exclusively through the journal’s editorial office.
2.4. To ensure anonymity, before sending the manuscript for review, the editorial office removes from the text and accompanying materials any information that could directly identify the author(s).
2.5. Each of the two reviewers conducts an independent review of the manuscript and submits a separate conclusion to the editorial office.
2.6. In the event of a significant discrepancy between the conclusions of two reviewers, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript to a third independent reviewer. The decision on further consideration of the manuscript is made taking into account all the expert opinions received.
2.7. The manuscript submitted for review is confidential material and an object of the author’s intellectual property. Reviewers do not have the right to transfer it to third parties, copy it, distribute it, or use the unpublished materials contained in it for their own purposes.
3. The content of the review
3.1. When preparing the conclusion, each reviewer evaluates:
· the article’s compliance with the journal’s scientific profile;
· the relevance of the research topic;
· the scientific novelty and validity of the author’s approach;
· the theoretical and/or practical significance of the results obtained;
· the correspondence of the content to the stated goals and objectives of the study;
· the validity and reasonableness of the main provisions and conclusions;
· the correctness of the methodology and research methods used;
· the quality and adequacy of the source and research base.
· the logical structure and sequence of the material;
· the scientific style, terminological accuracy, and clarity of the presentation;
· the correctness of citation and the formatting of bibliographic references and the list of references.
3.2. Based on the review of the manuscript, each of the two reviewers provides an independent conclusion and one of the following recommendations:
· to recommend the manuscript for publication;
· to recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revisions, without re‑reviewing.
· recommend a re‑review of the manuscript after the comments have been addressed, followed by a referral for a second review;
· do not recommend the manuscript for publication.
3.3. The review must contain a reasoned justification for the recommendation made and, if necessary, specific comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.
· the article’s compliance with the journal’s scientific profile;
· the relevance of the research topic;
· the scientific novelty and validity of the author’s approach;
· the theoretical and/or practical significance of the results obtained;
· the correspondence of the content to the stated goals and objectives of the study;
· the validity and reasonableness of the main provisions and conclusions;
· the correctness of the methodology and research methods used;
· the quality and adequacy of the source and research base.
· the logical structure and sequence of the material;
· the scientific style, terminological accuracy, and clarity of the presentation;
· the correctness of citation and the formatting of bibliographic references and the list of references.
3.2. Based on the review of the manuscript, each of the two reviewers provides an independent conclusion and one of the following recommendations:
· to recommend the manuscript for publication;
· to recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revisions, without re‑reviewing.
· recommend a re‑review of the manuscript after the comments have been addressed, followed by a referral for a second review;
· do not recommend the manuscript for publication.
3.3. The review must contain a reasoned justification for the recommendation made and, if necessary, specific comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript.
4.Revision and re‑review
4.1. If revisions are required, the editorial board will send the author the reviews or the comments contained in them, without indicating the authors’ surnames, positions, or places of work.
4.2. After making the necessary changes, the author will send the revised manuscript to the editorial board. If the conclusion предусматривает a second review, the revised version will be sent for expert assessment again.
4.3. During the second review, the reviewer may be provided with the original version of the manuscript, the revised version, and information about the changes made by the author.
4.4. If the revised manuscript is not submitted by the author within three months, the editorial board has the right to consider it as a newly received manuscript.
4.5. Manuscripts rejected by the editorial board based on the results of scientific peer review will not be considered again in the same form.
4.2. After making the necessary changes, the author will send the revised manuscript to the editorial board. If the conclusion предусматривает a second review, the revised version will be sent for expert assessment again.
4.3. During the second review, the reviewer may be provided with the original version of the manuscript, the revised version, and information about the changes made by the author.
4.4. If the revised manuscript is not submitted by the author within three months, the editorial board has the right to consider it as a newly received manuscript.
4.5. Manuscripts rejected by the editorial board based on the results of scientific peer review will not be considered again in the same form.
5. Decision on publication
5.1. The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the editor‑in‑chief, taking into account the results of the preliminary editorial review and the conclusions of two independent reviewers; in the case of additional review, the conclusions of a third reviewer are also taken into account.
5.2. The editorial board notifies the author of the decision made and, if necessary, sends recommendations for improving the manuscript or a reasoned refusal to publish.
5.3. If the author disagrees with the reviewers’ conclusions, they have the right to send a reasoned appeal to the editorial board. The editorial board will review the submission and may decide to forward the manuscript to another specialist for additional review or provide the author with a reasoned refusal.
5.2. The editorial board notifies the author of the decision made and, if necessary, sends recommendations for improving the manuscript or a reasoned refusal to publish.
5.3. If the author disagrees with the reviewers’ conclusions, they have the right to send a reasoned appeal to the editorial board. The editorial board will review the submission and may decide to forward the manuscript to another specialist for additional review or provide the author with a reasoned refusal.
6. Deadlines and storage of reviews
6.1. The review period is determined by the editorial board, taking into account the subject matter and length of the manuscript, as well as the possibility of involving relevant specialists. The total review period for the manuscript, as a rule, does not exceed six months from the date it is received by the editorial board.
6.2. If additional review is required or if a relevant specialist is temporarily unavailable, the review period may be extended, and the editorial board will notify the author of this.
6.3. The reviews are stored by the journal’s editorial board for three years.
6.2. If additional review is required or if a relevant specialist is temporarily unavailable, the review period may be extended, and the editorial board will notify the author of this.
6.3. The reviews are stored by the journal’s editorial board for three years.
7. Final provisions
7.1. No fee is charged from authors for conducting scientific review of manuscripts.
7.2. The editorial board reserves the right to carry out literary and scientific editing of materials accepted for publication while preserving the content and the author’s position.
7.3. Significant changes affecting the content of the article, the main provisions, or the author’s conclusions must be agreed upon with the author.
7.2. The editorial board reserves the right to carry out literary and scientific editing of materials accepted for publication while preserving the content and the author’s position.
7.3. Significant changes affecting the content of the article, the main provisions, or the author’s conclusions must be agreed upon with the author.
04 / PUBLICATION ETHICS
1. General principles
1.1. The publication of scientific results requires a reliable presentation of methods, data, conclusions, and sources, as well as responsible participation by all parties involved in the editorial and publishing process.
1.2. Scientific significance, relevance to the journal’s subject matter, methodological soundness, and compliance with ethical requirements serve as the basis for reviewing the manuscript. The decision to publish cannot depend on the author’s personal characteristics or worldview.
1.3. Manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial review, a check for originality in the Antiplagiat system, and a double‑blind review by two specialists. The author and the reviewers do not receive any information that would allow them to identify each other.
1.2. Scientific significance, relevance to the journal’s subject matter, methodological soundness, and compliance with ethical requirements serve as the basis for reviewing the manuscript. The decision to publish cannot depend on the author’s personal characteristics or worldview.
1.3. Manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial review, a check for originality in the Antiplagiat system, and a double‑blind review by two specialists. The author and the reviewers do not receive any information that would allow them to identify each other.
2. The responsibility of the editor‑in‑chief and the editorial board
2.1. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on whether to publish, revise, or reject the manuscript, taking into account the reviews, the scientific quality of the material, editorial policy, and legal requirements. If necessary, they consult with members of the editorial board.
2.2. Editorial decisions are made impartially, regardless of the author’s gender, age, origin, citizenship, religious or political beliefs, or organizational affiliation.
2.3. Information about the submitted manuscript is available only to those involved in its review within the scope of their authority. Unpublished data and ideas may not be used for personal purposes without the author's permission.
2.4. If there is a real or potential conflict of interest, a member of the editorial board informs the editor-in-chief about it and does not participate in making a decision on the relevant manuscript.
2.5. Upon receipt of reasonable information about significant errors, unfair borrowings or other violations, the editorial board organizes a review and takes appropriate measures, including correcting the publication, notifying readers or retracting.
2.2. Editorial decisions are made impartially, regardless of the author’s gender, age, origin, citizenship, religious or political beliefs, or organizational affiliation.
2.3. Information about the submitted manuscript is available only to those involved in its review within the scope of their authority. Unpublished data and ideas may not be used for personal purposes without the author's permission.
2.4. If there is a real or potential conflict of interest, a member of the editorial board informs the editor-in-chief about it and does not participate in making a decision on the relevant manuscript.
2.5. Upon receipt of reasonable information about significant errors, unfair borrowings or other violations, the editorial board organizes a review and takes appropriate measures, including correcting the publication, notifying readers or retracting.
3. The responsibilities of reviewers
3.1. The reviewer evaluates the scientific novelty, relevance, validity of the methodology, correctness of the conclusions, quality of the argumentation, and the bibliographic apparatus. The comments must be specific, professional, and well‑reasoned; personal assessments of the author are unacceptable.
3.2. If the reviewer lacks sufficient competence, is unable to meet the agreed deadline, or has a conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editorial board and refuse to review the manuscript.
3.3. The manuscript, appendices, and information obtained during the review process are confidential. They are prohibited from being distributed, copied for personal use, or used in one’s own research without the author’s and the editorial board’s permission.
3.4. The reviewer points out significant omissions in citation, incorrect borrowing, possible duplication of publications, and other signs of violation of publication ethics if they are detected.
3.5. The reviewer’s recommendation may include publication, publication after revisions, re‑review of the revised manuscript, or rejection. The final decision is made by the editor‑in‑chief.
3.2. If the reviewer lacks sufficient competence, is unable to meet the agreed deadline, or has a conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editorial board and refuse to review the manuscript.
3.3. The manuscript, appendices, and information obtained during the review process are confidential. They are prohibited from being distributed, copied for personal use, or used in one’s own research without the author’s and the editorial board’s permission.
3.4. The reviewer points out significant omissions in citation, incorrect borrowing, possible duplication of publications, and other signs of violation of publication ethics if they are detected.
3.5. The reviewer’s recommendation may include publication, publication after revisions, re‑review of the revised manuscript, or rejection. The final decision is made by the editor‑in‑chief.
4. The responsibilities of authors
4.1. The authors present the results of their own research, provide a reliable description of the methods and data, and do not engage in fabrication, falsification, distortion of quotations, or making unsubstantiated claims. Upon a reasonable request from the editorial board, the authors provide the necessary supporting materials, taking into account confidentiality requirements and applicable legislation.
4.2. The manuscript must be original. Plagiarism, appropriation of the results of someone else’s work, borrowing without proper references, and unjustified self‑repetition are unacceptable. In accordance with the journal’s requirements, the originality rate according to the “Antiplagiarism” system must exceed 80 %. The numerical indicator does not replace a substantive expert assessment of the borrowings.
4.3. Previously published materials and manuscripts that are simultaneously under consideration in another publication are not accepted for publication. The possibility of secondary publication, including translation, can be considered only with prior approval from the editorial board, respect for the rights of the copyright holders, and explicit indication of the primary source.
4.4. The authors include individuals who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co‑authors agree on the final text and its submission to the journal. Assistance that does not meet the criteria for authorship is acknowledged in the acknowledgments.
4.5. The use of unpublished materials, correspondence, conversations, expert opinions, and other confidential information is permitted provided that the necessary permissions are obtained. In studies involving human participants, the authors comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements, ensure informed consent, and protect personal data.
4.6. The authors disclose the sources of funding and the circumstances that could affect the independence of the research or create a conflict of interest. The absence of a conflict of interest may also be indicated in the manuscript.
4.7. If a significant error is detected in a submitted or published work, the author immediately informs the editorial board and assists in correcting, clarifying, or retracting the material.
4.2. The manuscript must be original. Plagiarism, appropriation of the results of someone else’s work, borrowing without proper references, and unjustified self‑repetition are unacceptable. In accordance with the journal’s requirements, the originality rate according to the “Antiplagiarism” system must exceed 80 %. The numerical indicator does not replace a substantive expert assessment of the borrowings.
4.3. Previously published materials and manuscripts that are simultaneously under consideration in another publication are not accepted for publication. The possibility of secondary publication, including translation, can be considered only with prior approval from the editorial board, respect for the rights of the copyright holders, and explicit indication of the primary source.
4.4. The authors include individuals who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co‑authors agree on the final text and its submission to the journal. Assistance that does not meet the criteria for authorship is acknowledged in the acknowledgments.
4.5. The use of unpublished materials, correspondence, conversations, expert opinions, and other confidential information is permitted provided that the necessary permissions are obtained. In studies involving human participants, the authors comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements, ensure informed consent, and protect personal data.
4.6. The authors disclose the sources of funding and the circumstances that could affect the independence of the research or create a conflict of interest. The absence of a conflict of interest may also be indicated in the manuscript.
4.7. If a significant error is detected in a submitted or published work, the author immediately informs the editorial board and assists in correcting, clarifying, or retracting the material.
5. The editorial staff’s responsibilities and handling violations
5.1. The editorial board ensures the application of uniform procedures for preliminary review, peer review, and decision‑making, maintains the confidentiality of manuscripts, and documents significant editorial actions.
5.2. Reports of possible violations are considered substantively, with interested parties being given the opportunity to provide explanations. If necessary, the editorial board requests additional materials and interacts with scientific organizations or other publishers.
5.3. If a violation is confirmed, the editorial board selects a measure taking into account its nature and consequences: correction, publication of a notice, refusal to publish, or retraction of the published article. Information about corrections and retractions must be available to readers.
5.4. The editorial board promotes the improvement of the quality of scientific publications and refines the journal’s rules, taking into account professional standards of publication ethics.
5.2. Reports of possible violations are considered substantively, with interested parties being given the opportunity to provide explanations. If necessary, the editorial board requests additional materials and interacts with scientific organizations or other publishers.
5.3. If a violation is confirmed, the editorial board selects a measure taking into account its nature and consequences: correction, publication of a notice, refusal to publish, or retraction of the published article. Information about corrections and retractions must be available to readers.
5.4. The editorial board promotes the improvement of the quality of scientific publications and refines the journal’s rules, taking into account professional standards of publication ethics.