Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Open access policy
The scientific and information journal «Didactics» adheres to the standards of open access, i.e. free download, reading and printing of materials. The online version of the magazine is free after printing the paper version.
Principles of publication
The editorial policy of the «Didactics» magazine is based on the following principles:
- collegial decision-making on the publication of articles;
– objectivity and impartiality in the selection of articles for publication;
- compulsory review of articles;
- strict requirements for authors regarding the level of scientific research, preparation and registration of its results;
- compliance with ethical norms in communication with authors, availability and timeliness.
- Ethics of publications
1.1. Authoritative scientists and interns in the field of the article are involved in the review.
1.2. Articles submitted for publication undergo a «double-blind» peer review and plagiarism check.
1.3. Scientific articles designed in full compliance with the materials submitted by the authors to periodicals are accepted for review. To determine the degree of compliance with these requirements, all articles and related materials undergo initial control. In case of comments during the initial control, the article and other materials are returned to the author to eliminate the identified deficiencies.
1.4. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors; it is carried out by two reviewers. For review, the coded article is submitted to a reviewer who is a leading expert on the topic of the article.
1.5. The reviewer who received the coded article fills out a standard form and chooses one of the following recommendations – recommended for publication; recommended viewing; not recommended for publication.
1.6. Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts provided to them are the intellectual property of the authors and that the information contained in the manuscript is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers cannot use the data of their works before publication in their own interests.
1.7. In case of a negative conclusion (absence of a recommendation for publication or determination of the need to revise the article), the reviewer must provide a written, motivated explanation of his decision.
1.8. Further work with the article accepted for publication is carried out by the apparatus responsible for the formation of the periodical division in accordance with the technological process of preparing the collection.
1.9. The decision of the editorial board of the working group is communicated to the author(s) of the article. If revision is necessary, the author(s) is also sent a review text containing recommendations for revision of the article. Anonymity of the reviewers is guaranteed by the editors of the collection.
1.10. The revised version of the article has been sent for re-review. In the case of a repeated negative conclusion of the reviewer, the article is rejected and is not subject to further review.
1.11. The editors do not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
- Ethical obligations of the authors
2.1. The author bears full responsibility for the content of the article.
2.2. The author must correctly indicate the sources used in his work, if they are not obtained by the author himself.
2.3. Plagiarism is illegal.
2.4. The co-authors of the article must be persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the presented work and are responsible for the results.
- Ethical obligations of the reviewer
3.1. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and presentation, and determine whether the work is done well enough for high scientific and literary standards.
3.2. The reviewer must adequately explain and justify his opinion so that the associate editor and the author(s) can understand the basis of his observations.
3.3. The reviewer must submit the review on time.
