Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Statement on the ethical standards of the publication adopted at "Logical studies" is based on the recommendations of the Committee on publication ethics (COPE) and the Guidance on the ethics of scientific publications of Elsevier.
The decision to publish
- The editor of the journal "Logical Investigations" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers should be published. The decision to publish is based on the reliability and scientific significance of the work. The decision of the editor may be influenced by the editorial policy of the journal, as well as by the current legislation regarding libel, copyright infringement or plagiarism. The editor has the right to consult with other members of the editorial Board or reviewers, making a decision.
- The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without taking into account race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political views of the authors.
- The editor and any other editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other members of the editorial Board, as well as the publisher, in due course.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
- Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author. Information not subject to disclosure or ideas obtained during the review should be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes.
- Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. ask a co-editor, assistant editor, or other member of the editorial Board to replace them in the review and review process) from reviewing manuscripts if there is a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) organizations associated with the papers.
Oversight of publications
- An editor who has obtained conclusive evidence that the content or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should contact the publisher to arrange for the prompt publication of amendments, retractions or other communication relevant to the situation.
Involvement and collaboration in research
- The editor should take reasonably responsive measures upon recieving complaints of ethical nature in relation to the submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures usually involve contact with the author of the paper and responsible consideration of the complaint on the merits, but may also involve further interaction with relevant organizations and research groups.
Influence on the decisions of the Editorial Board
- Peer review helps the editor in deciding whether to publish or reject the manuscript and, through editorial correspondence with the author, can also help the author to improve the paper.
Sense of duty
- Each selected reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to evaluate the research presented in the paper or knows that its rapid assessment will not be possible should notify the editor and refuse to review.
- Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It can not be shown or discussed outside the circle of persons authorized by the editor.
Manuscript requirements and objectivity
- Reviews should be made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supporting them with arguments.
Recognition of primary sources
- Reviewers should identify works that are relevant to the paper, which were not referred to by the authors. Every allegation that an observation, conclusion or argument has been made previously must be supported by a reference. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities and intersections between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he or she is personally aware.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
- Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the explicit written consent of the author. The information or ideas obtained during the review should remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes until the publication of the paper and without the permission of the author.
- Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in respect of which there is a conflict of interest arising as a result of competitive, collaborative or other relationships or relationships with any of the authors, companies or organizations associated with the papers.
Requirements for manuscripts
- Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate description of the work done, as well as an objective justification of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately presented in the paper. The paper should contain enough details and references for others to reproduce the work. False or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
- Reviews and overviews should also be accurate and objective, and works expressing the author's personal private opinion should be explicitly noted as such.
Originality and plagiarism
- The author should make sure that they have written a completely original work. If works or formulations of other researchers have been used, this should be properly reflected in references and citations.
- Plagiarism takes many forms, from submitting someone else's work as one’s own, to paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's paper (without attribution), to appropriation of the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
- The author should generally not publish manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal of the original publication. Submitting one manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- As a rule, the author should not submit an already published paper to another journal.
Recognition of primary sources
- Authors should refer to publications that have had a significant impact on the content of the submitted work. Information obtained privately, such as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with a third party, should not be used or disclosed without the Express written permission of the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the Express written permission of the author of the work that was the subject of this activity.
Authorship of publication
- Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. In cases where third parties have contributed to specific but significant aspects of the study, they should be listed in the list of Acknowledgements or participants.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors, and only they, are listed in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper, and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
- Authors should indicate in their manuscript any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that may have an impact on the results or their interpretation contained in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be indicated.
Significant errors in published works
- When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, the author is obliged to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editors in refuting or correcting the paper. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains a significant error, the author must promptly refute or correct the paper.
Retraction of papers
If the editorial Board recieves information that an paper published in the journal "Logical Investigations" contains plagiarism, or the publication of the submitted data is contrary to the legislation of the Russian Federation, the question of retraction (withdrawal) of the paper is raised. The retraction process is organized as follows:
- The author, reader, reviewer, editor or publisher shall notify the editorial office of the violation in writing.
- The editorial Board considers the appeal and makes a decision on retraction or refusal of the paper. If a decision on retraction is made, the editorial Board sends a letter to the author with a description of the detected violations.
- The printed and electronic versions of the journal publish a message about the retraction of the paper with the explanation of the reasons.
- The editors withdraw the paper from all citation databases and electronic resources, which include the journal.
The order of review
For the sake of objectivity, all materials submitted to the journal undergo the procedure of double-blind peer review. The name and place of work of the author is not known to reviewers or members of the editorial Board. Reviewers and members of the editorial Board are not known to the author. Each work is evaluated by two reviewers independently. Members of the editorial Board or outside experts may participate in the review. It is the responsibility of the editorial Board to select reviewers who have the necessary competence to evaluate the work and do not have a conflict of interest in relation to the work under consideration. Papers of the members of the editorial Board published in the journal are reviewed on the same basis. The review procedure consists of the following stages.
- Initial check of the manuscript for compliance with the journal's aim and scope and formal requirements. In case of a negative decision regarding the consideration of the paper, the author receives a refusal message.
- The paper accepted for consideration is sent to two reviewers. The reviewing duties may be taken up by members of the editorial Board or external experts. All reviewers are experts on the subject of peer-reviewed materials, have a degree of at least candidate of Sciences and are not in scientific, financial or any other relationships with the authors. Review of papers is carried out on a voluntary and free of charge basis. The review is carried out anonymously: the names of the author and reviewers are not disclosed to each other.
- Each reviewer follows the principles set out in the Statement on ethical standards of publication, the section "Reviewers' Responsibilities". The reviewed paper is evaluated according to the following criteria:
- The structure of the paper (divided into paragraphs, subsections, annexes, keywords; clearly expressed goals and objectives of the paper; sequence of presentation; introduction and conclusion clearly Express the main idea of the paper).
- Argumentation (the main ideas and the main topic have been sufficiently developed and argued; the adequacy of references and sources).
- Style (subject and availability of presentation correspond to the target audience; grammar; punctuation; spelling).
- Relevance and scientific significance of the topic and results of the work.
Based on these criteria, the reviewer (1) recommends the paper for publication as not requiring significant revisions, or (2) recommends the paper for publication under the condition of significant revisions, or (3) does not recommend the paper for publication.
The editorial board receives two reviews for each article:
The editorial Board stores reviews for 5 years. The editors send the authors of submitted manuscripts copies of reviews or a well-argued refusal. The editorial Board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the relevant request.
- If there are two positive reviews, the paper is accepted by the editorial Board for further publication.
- In case of two negative reviews, the paper is rejected, and the editors notify the author.
- In case of disagreement between the two reviewers, the editorial Board makes a final decision as a result of additional internal review of the work or involves a third reviewer.
- If one or two reviewers believe that the publication of the paper is possible after a significant revision, the author re-submits the revised paper in a predetermined time. The revised paper is necessarily accompanied by the author's response to the reviewer in the form of a separate cover letter. The editorial Board makes a final decision on the publication or rejection of the paper on the basis of how well the author takes into account the comments of reviewers.