Publication ethics

The authors, reviewers and the editorial board of the Information Society journal do their best to prevent any manifestations of incompatibility with scientific research, and in particular such as:

  • plagiarism and other copyright violations;
  • self-plagiarism;
  • threats to the health and life of people, animals or ecosystems;
  • publication of insufficiently substantiated statements and conclusions;
  • incorrectness, incompleteness or lack of links to sources;
  • deliberate distortion of information;
  • conflict of interest around the publication;
  • other violations of generally accepted ethical norms and laws.

The authors fully and correctly indicate in the article

  • authors, other persons and organizations that financed or otherwise contributed to the research, other subjects of possible conflicts of interest;
  • sufficient grounds available to the reader to verify each statement (in particular, to verify evidence or to repeat experiments);
  • sources of borrowing and licenses regulating access to them;

format the article in such a way as to make it easier for specialists in related fields to understand and verify the results and their justifications, using

  • standard terminology and notation;
  • clear structure of presentation;
  • competent and expressive language of a scientific text with formulas, tables and illustrations;

immediately provide the editorial office with information

  • about themselves, helping to eliminate a conflict of interest during reviewing;
  • errors noticed in published works;
  • about the circumstances that have arisen that prevent the publication of the latest version of the article;

accept this declaration and exclude any possibility of simultaneous submission of the article to another peer-reviewed publication and the subsequent publication of the article or part of it (in particular, translation into another language) without a noticeable, complete and unambiguous reference to the source.

Reviewers

  • immediately refuse to review if there is a risk of biased (conflict of interest, incompetence) or untimely assessment;
  • respect the confidentiality of consideration and the terms of review;
  • objectively and impartially, thoroughly arguing their opinion, reflect in the review the strengths and weaknesses of the work, giving constructive suggestions for improving the article;
  • immediately inform the editorial board about any violations of ethical norms.

Members of the editorial board

  • bear full responsibility for everything that is published in the journal;
  • confidentially and conflict-free organize the process of objective review and decision-making;
  • make fair and impartial decisions regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship or political preference of authors or commercial interests of editors;
  • develop an editorial policy that ensures maximum transparency and full accountability to the author;
  • protect the integrity of publications by promptly correcting errors and misleading statements in published materials and, if possible, on the resources of integrators, if necessary;
  • protect the rights of third parties from unauthorized use of materials;
  • carefully monitor compliance with ethical standards in publications related to human and animal research and environmental impacts;
  • inform authors and reviewers about decisions made and expected actions and readers about illegal publications.

The Editor-in-Chief and Publisher ensure collaboration with other publishers and industry associations, including ethical concerns, error tracking and rejection of inappropriate publications, and adopt and maintain editorial policies in accordance with the Association of Science Editors and Publishers' Ethics Guidelines, adjusting them to reflect new recommendations from the Scientific Ethics publications (COPE).

Each participant in the publication process, upon detection of a clear violation of ethical or legal norms by authors, reviewers or editors, receives clarifications from the suspects, and if the answer is unsatisfactory, asks the publisher, employer, funding organization or other suitable regulatory body to investigate and take action.