Thematic electronic scientific online journal NCFSCHVW

Fruit growing
and viticulture of South Russia


The editorial board of topical network electronic scientific journal «Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia» is governed, running its activity, by the international ethical rules of scientific publications, including the rules of decency, confidentiality, surveillance over the publications, taking into account the probable conflicts of interests, etc. To run its activity, the editorial staff follows the recommendations, worked out by the Committee on Publication Ethics, and also relies on the valuable experience of the authoritative international journals and publishing houses.

The observance of the publishing ethics principles is a main task of editing, reviewing, publishing and determining the authorship of scientific publications.


The observance of rules of scientific publications ethics by all the participants of this process favours ensuring the authors’ rights to intellectual property, higher quality of publication in the eyes of the world scientific community and ruling out opportunity of the authors’ materials illegal exploitation in the interests of individual persons.

The ethics of scientific publication authors

The authors (or a collective of authors) when presenting the materials to the editorial staff for topical network electronic scientific journal «Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia» apprehend, that they are initially liable for the novelty of obtained scientific results, which were published nowhere before, and authenticity of scientific research results, supposing the observance of the principles as follows:

­    -   To submit the reliable results of the work done, and also impersonal discussion of the research results. The deliberately untrue, fraudulent or falsified statements are equal to unethical behaviour and are inadmissible.

­   -    To participate in the process of expert judgement of an article manuscript. An editor-in-chief may require from the authors the initial data of scientific article for editorial review, and the authors should be ready to provide an open access to such data, if it seems possible, and in any case they should be ready to keep the initial materials within a reasonable period of time, elapsed after their publishing.

­    -   To guarantee, that the results of research, set forth in a submitted manuscript, represent an independent and original work. The use of fragments and/or adoption of other authors’ statements requires to incorporate the relevant bibliographical reference into an article with obligatory indication of an author and original source. The excessive adoptions, as well as plagiarism in any forms, including unincorporated quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of somebody else's researches, are regarded as unethical behaviour and ares inadmissible. The adoptions without quotations will be regarded by editorial board as a plagiarism.

­     -  To recognize the contribution of other persons, influencing the character of presented research one way or another. In doing so the bibliographical references to the used Russian-language and foreign works is obligatory. The information, obtained privately, through conversation, correspondence or discussion with the third persons, shall not be used, if an open written permit from their source is unavailable. All the sources shall be disclosed. Even if the written or illustrative materials of the greater number of persons are used, the permit to it must be obtained and presented to the editorial staff.

­  -     To present to journal an original manuscript, that was not proposed to another journal and is not now under consideration, and also an article, earlier unpublished in another journal (the author has to specify in accompanying letter, that the work is published for the first time). The non-compliance with this principle is regarded as a gross violation of publication ethics and affords ground for the article to be withdrawn from reviewing. If the elements of manuscript were published in another article, the authors have to refer to an earlier work and specify the significant difference of the new work from the previous one. The word-for-word copying of own works and their paraphrasing are inadmissible; these may be used only as a basis for the new conclusions. The submission of article to more than a single journal concurrently is regarded as unethical behaviour and is inadmissible.

­ -      To guarantee the regular staff of the works соauthors, which is to be limited to the persons, who made the significant intellectual contribution to its concept, structure, and also to performance or interpretation of the represented work results. All those, making the significant contribution, should be enlisted as the соauthors. An author must guarantee, that the names of all соauthors and participants of the project are entered to the lists of the соauthors and participants, and that all the соauthors were acquainted with a final version of scientific work and approved it, and also gave their consent to its publication. All the authors indicated in the article shall be publicly liable for the contents of article. The indication of persons, not involved in research, is inadmissible among the соauthors.

­ -      At the author’s detection of substantial errors or inaccuracy in the article at the stage of its consideration or after publishing it, he has to notify of it immediately the editorial staff of journal and render his assistance in elimination or correction of error within the shortest time possible. If the editorial staff of journal learns from a third person, that the published work contains the substantial errors, the author has to eliminate or correct them instantly, or to provide the editorial staff with the proofs of accuracy of information he presented.

-­       To indicate all the sources of the work financial support in the manuscripts, to disclose in the works the information on the probable interest conflicts, that may influence the results of research, their interpretation, and also the opinions of reviewers.


The ethics of scientific publication reviewers

A reviewer shall provide the scientific expertise of the authors’ materials, owing to which his actions must be unbiased, to consist in observance of the principles as follows:

­ -      An expert judgement is an editor’s aid in taking the editorial decisions and through the cooperation of editor and author may help the latter to improve the quality of article text.

­-     Any reviewer chosen to appraise a work, who does not consider himself a specialist in the topic of article, or knows, that he won’t be able to present the review in due time, has to notify of it the editor-in-chief and give up reviewing.

­-       A reviewer may not be an author or соauthor of the work under review, and also the research supervisors of the applicants for scientific degree and/or employees of a unit, where the  author works.

-­       Any manuscript, submitted for expertise, shall be considered as a confidential document. Showing it to other reviewers or discussion with other experts, save the persons, indicated by the editor-in-chief, is inadmissible.

­ -      The reviewer’s opinions of scientific works must be impersonal. The personal criticism of the author is inadmissible. The reviewers are obliged to express their opinion clearly and reasonably.

­ -      The reviewers have to reveal, if possible, the respective published works, related to the article under review, and which were not cited by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments, which were used already earlier in any publications, shall be supported by an accurate bibliographical reference. A reviewer has to pay also the editor-in-chief’s attention to significant similarity or partial coincidence of the article under review with any other, earlier published one.

­ -     A reviewer should not use the unpublished materials from the manuscript submitted to him in the own research without the written consent of the author. The closed information or ideas, obtained in the time of reviewing, shall remain confidential and unused for self-profit. The reviewers should not take part in consideration and estimation of manuscripts, in which they  are personally interested.

­ -      A reviewer should not accept a manuscript for consideration, given the conflict of interests, caused by competition, cooperation or other relations with any authors or organizations, dealing with the article.


The ethics of the editors and editorial board

Running their activity, the editorial staff, workers of editorial and publishing group and members of the journal editorial board are liable for promulgation of the authors’ works, leading to the need to comply with the following underlying principles and procedures:


-­       When taking decision on publishing, the editor-in-chief of scientific journal is governed by authenticity of presented data and scientific significance of the work under consideration.

­-       The submission of article for consideration implies it to contain the new nontrivial scientific results the authors obtained, which were published nowhere before. Each article is subject to review. Reviewing proceeds by a scheme, when the reviewers know the author, but the author does not know a reviewer. The experts have all the opportunities to pronounce freely the motivated criticism regarding the level and clarity of presented material, its conformity with a profile of journal, novelty and reliability of results. The recommendations of reviewers are the basis to take a final decision to publish an article or not.

­-       The responsibility for decision to publish or not is completely born by editorial staff. The editorial staff, governed by a policy of journal, takes a decision on publication with regard for legislation in force in the field of copyright. An article, should it be adopted for publishing, is placed on open access; the copyright is reserved for the authors.

­ -      The editor and all the editorial staff workers have a right to disclose information on the presented works to nobody, but to the respective authors, reviewers, other editorial advisers and, as may be required, the publisher.

-­       The editor and the editorial staff workers have no right to use the unpublished materials, used in presented manuscript, in the own research without written consent of the author.

­ -      The journal editor-in-chief shall be liable for decision on which of the articles, sent to the journal, will be accepted for publishing, and which ones rejected. As this takes place, he obeys the legal restraints, avoiding defamation, violation of copyright and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief of journal may consult the members of editorial board and reviewers, to take a decision.

-­       The editor-in-chief should not have any conflict of interests in relation to the articles, he rejects or accepts.

-­       Should the conflict of interests result from competitive relations, cooperation or other relations and contacts with one of the authors, companies, or agencies, related to the presented manuscripts, the editor passes manuscript for consideration to another member of editorial staff. The editors have to request from all participants of the process the disclosure of existing competitive interests. If the competition of interests was revealed as the article had been published, the editorial staff is obliged to ensure publishing of corrections. When filing an ethical complaint concerning a presented manuscript or published article, the editor has to take the reasonable retaliatory measures, in concert with a publisher (or society). Each message on the fact of unethical behaviour will be considered, even if entered later as the article had been published. If a complaint is supported, the corrections, disclaimers or excuses should be published.