EDITORIAL POLICY AND ETHICS

  The policy of the editorial board of the scientific and information-analytical journal "National and Foreign Pedagogy" is based on legal requirements with regard to copyright; ethical principles supported by a community of leading scientific press publishers; and also on the principles of scientific truth, scientific honesty, rejection of plagiarism and slander.
  Forming the editorial policy, the journal proceeds from the recommendations of international organizations on the ethics of scientific publications. The editorial policy of the journal is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for the journal editor and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Rights and obligations of the Chief Editor

Publication decisions

  The Chief Editor of a scientific journal decides on the publication of copyright materials after their approval at a meeting of the Editorial Board. The basis for this decision is the scientific credibility and significance of the publication for the scientific community. The Chief Editor is guided by the editorial policy of the journal, legal requirements for issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. When making these decisions, the Editor can consult with members of the Editorial Board or reviewers.

Review

  The Chief Editor should ensure the fairness, impartiality, and timeliness of the review process. As a rule, scientific papers should be studied by at least two objective and independent experts and, if necessary, the Editor can get to know other opinions.
  The Chief Editor should select reviewers with the necessary amount of specialized knowledge in the relevant field. In order to identify any possibility of a biased approach, the Editor should examine all statements about possible conflicts of interest and the comments of reviewers on self-citation.

Impartiality

  The Chief Editor should evaluate the manuscripts according to their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political ideologies of the authors.
  The editorial policy of the journal should encourage transparency and full and impartial presentation of information by the authors.
  The Chief Editor should not try to influence the journal ranking, purposefully overestimating any indicators of the journal. In particular, the Chief Editor should not require the inclusion of links to papers of this (or any other) journal, except for purely scientific substantiation, and cannot require Authors to include links to their own manuscripts or products / services in which the Chief Editor has interest.

Confidentiality

  The Chief Editor should ensure the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and all processes of information exchange with Reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the respective Authors and Reviewers. In exceptional circumstances, the Chief Editor may share a limited amount of information with editors of other journals, if he considers it necessary to investigate an alleged violation of the ethical standards of scientific work.
  In addition to cases when the journal uses an open review system and / or if the Reviewers have agreed to disclose their data, the Chief Editor should ensure the protection of the personal data of the Reviewers.
  Unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in the Editor’s own studies without the express written consent of their Author. Confidential scientific information obtained during the review process should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Supervision of published materials

  The Chief Editor should work to protect the reputation of published materials by studying and evaluating reported or suspected violations (research, publications, reviews and editorial activities) in collaboration with the scientific community. 
  This includes interaction with the Author of the manuscript or careful consideration of the relevant complaint or complaints. To identify violations such as plagiarism, the Editor must use the appropriate licensing systems.
  The Chief Editor, who received convincing evidence of a violation, should inform the members of the Editorial Board / Scientific Community about this, organizing an immediate notice to the Author about the need for amendments or withdrawal of the publication, depending on the situation.

Rights and obligations of reviewers

Impact on Editorial Board decisions

  Reviewing helps the Chief Editor in making publishing decisions, and can also help the author improve the quality of his work. Peer review is an essential component of official scientific communication. Reviewers should abide by the rules and standards of bona fide review.
  Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the studies presented in the manuscript or is not sure that the review can be prepared on time should notify the Editor and refuse to participate in the review process.

Confidentiality

  Any manuscript received for review are considered confidential documents. Reviewers should not share information about her or communicate directly with the author without the permission of the editor.
  Unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in the Reviewer's own research without the express written consent of their author. Confidential information obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

Special focus on ethics

  The Reviewer should be especially attentive to possible ethical issues and should bring them to the attention of the Chief Editor, including any significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work from the Reviewer's professional competence. Any statement that research results, conclusions or arguments have already been published previously should be accompanied by a corresponding link.

Standards of objectivity and conflict of interest

  Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers should clearly and convincingly express their opinions.

  Before agreeing to prepare a review of a work with which a conflict of interest may arise as a result of competitive, collective or other relationships with any of the Authors or institutions associated with this work, Reviewers should consult with the editor.
  If the Reviewer assumes that the Author includes references to the work of the Reviewer (or the work of his colleagues), then this should be used exclusively for scientific substantiation, and not to increase the number of references to the Reviewer or increase the attractiveness of his / her work (or his / her colleagues).

Rights and obligations of authors

Manuscript requirements

  The Authors of the paper are those who have made a significant contribution to the formulation and solution of the problem considered in the manuscript and share responsibility for the results obtained. The Author, who submitted the manuscript of the article to the Editor, takes responsibility for coordinating with other Authors the choice of a periodical for its publication, the accuracy of the contact information.
  Authors of publications on the results of scientific research should provide accurate information about the work carried out and an objective justification of its value. The manuscript should be sufficiently detailed and have sufficient bibliographic references. Fraud or misleading statements are unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  Reviews and scientific articles in professional journals should also be accurate and objective, and the editorial point of view should be clearly marked.
  Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else’s work as an Author’s own work, copying or paraphrasing significant parts of other work (without attribution), to claiming one’s own rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable behavior.

Repeated, duplicate or simultaneous publications

  The Author should not publish materials that describe in principle the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable behavior.
  The Author should not submit for consideration to another journal an already published article, unless it is presented in the form of a brief review or part of a published lecture, or abstracts, or in the form of an electronic preprint.
  Publication of certain types of articles (eg, recommendations, translations) in more than one journal, in some cases and subject to certain conditions, is ethical. Authors and Editors of relevant journals should agree on a re-publication, representing the same information and interpretation as in the initial publication. Re-publication should be given a bibliography of the initial publication.

Confidentiality

  Information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as preparing a manuscript review or application for a grant, should not be used without the express written permission of the author of the work that has become the object of the aforementioned services.

Refusal to publish and return the manuscript

  If the Authors and the reviewer have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the paper for additional reviewing. If there are two negative reviews, the Author is sent a reasoned refusal to publish the work, certified by the Chief Editor or his Deputy. The decision to refuse publication is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board; a disclaimer is sent to the author by email.