ISSN 0869-6632 (Online)
ISSN 2542-1905 (Print)


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Editorial Office, authors and reviewers of the journal Izvestiya VUZ. Applied Nonlinear Dynamics follow a generally accepted in the international scientific community code of ethics based on standards developed by the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The publisher, Editorial Board, and Editorial Office make all possible efforts to prevent publication of any material obtained through research misconduct.

All articles are published free of charge. Authors and reviewers of the journal Izvestiya VUZ. Applied Nonlinear Dynamics neither have to pay any fee, nor they obtain any remuneration from the publisher. Considereation of each manuscript is performed in agreement with
Procedures of Reviewing Manuscripts Submitted.

Rights and duties of the publisher

Authors deliver to the publisher (Saratov State University) the exclusive rights for published atrcles. Any public share of any material from the journal without a permission of the publisher is not allowed, unless it is clearly stated on the journal website or in the journal print version. Readers, authors, and reviewers may contact Editorial Office, or Editorial Board members for such a permission. A private use of material from the journal (e.g. to prepare lections, talks or research) is not forbidden, including private communications with collegues. All issues older than 3 years are distributed free of charge from the journal web site.

The publisher is responsible for storage of all journal content for reasonable time, even if the journal becomes not active in future (no new issues published).

The publisher is responsible to provide actual and correct information about the journal, including periodicity, rights and permissions, citing, indexing, content, and metadata. All information is avaliable on the journal web site.

Duties of authors

Originality and novelty in research work, authorship

Authors guarantee that the manuscript is the result of their own research, that all people who have made a significant contribution to the research are mentioned among authors, and that in the list of authors there are no people irrelevant to the reported study. Authors guarantee that the order of co-authors is approved by all authors. Also, authors guarantee that the manuscript material has not already been published and submitted for publication in other journals (this requirement does not apply to scientific reviews).

Citing sources

Authors are responsible for completeness and relevance of cited sources, including their own papers. On the one hand, authors should refer to their own results which have been obtained and published previously, even if those were obtained long ago or published in another language. On the other hand, authors should understand that it is unacceptable to include their works or works of other scientists not related to the subject of the manuscript in order to raise their scientometric indicators or scientometric indicators of journals or books where these papers were published.

Relationships with editors

It is authors’ responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Board if a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in a submitted, accepted for publication or already published work.

If authors were refused to publish, correspondence with editors including a review will be considered confidential information for official use only and may not be disclosed without the consent of the editor. However, authors may use the information and advice obtained from the reviewer in preparing their future publications.

If the manuscript was sent for revision, authors have to do it within the specified period (4 weeks, unless noted). If they delay the manuscript, the editor should be informed. If authors refuse to review the manuscript or decide to publish the manuscript in another journal, the editor should also be informed.

Sources of funding

Authors have to mention all funding sources used for the presented study, including state grants, support from international foundations, private foundations, industry or individual persons. Only sources of funding which were actually used may be mentioned.

Duties of reviewers

Privacy policy

Scientific ideas and results obtained from submitted manuscripts are not subject to disclosure and must not be used for personal advantage before publication. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and cannot be transferred to third parties without the consent of the editor responsible for this work or the chief editor (or his deputies).

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be objective and reasoned. Personal criticism of authors and offensive statements are not acceptable, regardless of the degree of reviewer disagreement with the content of the manuscript. If there is a conflict of interests between the reviewer and one of the authors with an assigned manuscript, for instance, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions, the editor-in-chief or associate editor must be notified promptly.

The reviewer is not entitled to impose authors citing his/her own work and make the results of the review dependent on it. However, if the reviewer works do play an important role in the area of research but were missed by the authors the reviewer should report the conflict of interest to the editor and point out this problem.

The role of reviewers

The reviewer must understand that his/her role and influence on the results of manuscript consideration is very significant, therefore a qualified and, to the extent possible, detailed analysis should be provided. The reviewer should be guided by the assumption that the authors’ approach to their work was conscientious and drawbacks in the manuscript occurred unintentionally. If the manuscript cannot be published in its present form, but its results are original and significant from a scientific point of view, the purpose of the review should be to indicate its shortcomings to the authors in order to remove them (and, if possible, to indicate the ways of removing these shortcomings).

The reviewer should try to formulate all the comments on the work in the first review. If this is not possible due to the fact that the manuscript was substantially revised, the reviewer has the right to advance new claims only to those parts of the text that have undergone significant review or were written from scratch. New claims to already reviewed text during the re-review are considered unethical.

Implementation of the commitments

The reviewer is obliged to provide a review in a period of 6 weeks (unless otherwise agreed with the editor). If he can't provide a review at the appointed time for any reason, he should notify the editor to be excused from the review process. Intentional delay of the review or neglect of the peer review process is inconsistent with generally recognized ethical standards.

Editorial Board duties

Decision making

Decision to accept the manuscript for publication is the prerogative of the editorial Board. As a rule, the decision is made by the Chief editor or one of his deputies if they did not delegate this authority to other members of the Editorial Board. All editors should have no conflict of interests and have no right to take immediate decisions on the manuscripts in which they are authors or authors of which are in relation to them in a subordinate position.

The Editorial Board and principally Chief editor and his deputies are responsible for resolving disputes between authors and reviewers, between authors and editors, and between reviewers and editors on the basis of open and honest exchange of views. Thus all of them must follow generally accepted politeness norms.

Impartiality

Manuscripts are evaluated solely in accordance with their content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political opinion of the authors.

Privacy policy

The Editorial Board does not submit the manuscript for looking through or copy until it is published. Editors do not provide authors with information on the surname, first name, patronymic name, place of work and residence, nationality, position, academic degree and academic rank of the reviewers in order to ensure impartiality of the review process.