Scientific-practical reviewed journal

Clinical and Experimental Morphology

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
of the Scientific and Practical Peer-Reviewed Journal Clinical and Experimental Morphology

Ethical standards
The Clinical and Experimental Morphology aims at dissemination of the accumulated knowledge and empirical findings within the international scientific community. Publication of original research and expert opinions in peer-reviewed journals provides a major route of scientific communication and significantly contributes to the progress in corresponding fields of scientific knowledge. Publication of an article in a scientific peer-reviewed journal serves a number of purposes, notably the reliable and accurate documentation of the concept, progress and results of particular research projects. The publishing process consists of clearly defined stages, each having its own particular significance. The editorial staff and advisors, the authors and reviewers, as well as the Publisher and members of the professional community represented by the journal, must comply to the ethical standards at all stages of the publishing process, from submission and initial processing of a manuscript to its final release as a journal article.
The Publisher is committed to ethical conduct throughout the publishing process. It is devoted to the reference standards set by international associations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the European association of Science Editors (EASE), which set the requirements and provide guidelines for best practice to meet these requirements. The Editors and the Publisher adhere to the Editorial Policy Statements issued by the Council of Science Editors (CSE) covering the duties, rights and responsibilities of the peer-reviewed journal editors.
The Editorial Board works in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

 

Editorial Responsibilities

Editorial Decision on a Manuscript
The Editorial Board arrives at a decision in accordance with relevant legal requirements for copyright on the basis of assessed relevance, scientific adequacy and reliability of the paper, and regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, origin, citizenship, religious or political beliefs of the authors.

The final decision on publication of an article is made by Editorial Board on the basis of the reviewer(s) reports with consideration to substantiality of the author(s) reply to the reviewer(s) comments.

Confidentiality
Any material entering the Editorial Office is considered confidential. The content of manuscripts is not disclosed to third parties or discussed with them without prior approval from the Editorial Office. The editorial staff is fully responsible for not disclosing the information about the received manuscript to any person except the authors, reviewers or other editorial staff involved in its processing.

Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in research or otherwise without written consent of the authors.

The Editorial/Advisory Board members must not participate in the review and editorial decision-making processes in the case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with the authors, organizations and companies related to the manuscript.

Responding to Violations of the Ethical Standards
In the case of ethical claims or a conflict related to submitted manuscript or published article, the Editorial Office, in collaboration with the authors and the Publisher, should take appropriate retaliatory measures to restore the violated rights and, if the case arises, facilitate the publication of corrections or rebuttals. Each claim of unethical behavior must be considered regardless of the date of acceptance of the article by the journal. All documents related to the facts of violation of the ethical requirements must be preserved.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

Contribution to the Editorial Decision on a Manuscript
The review process is intended to provide the expert support to the editorial decision-making procedure and facilitate communication with the authors in order to improve the quality of publication.

Good Faith
A candidate reviewer who is not sufficiently confident to review the manuscript or unable to prepare a review within the time limit set by the Editorial Office must reject the proposal by notifying the Editor-in-Chief on these circumstances.

Confidentiality
A manuscript under review must be considered confidential. The content must not be disclosed to or discussed with any persons unless authorized by the Editorial Office.

Objectivity and Impartiality
A reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript and its compliance with the requirements of the journal. The opinion of the reviewer should be stated clearly and supported by arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable.

Commitment to Primary Sources
Reviewers should identify significant published studies that are relevant to the topic of the research, but not included in the reference list of the manuscript. Any statement (idea, observation, conclusion or argument) that has been published elsewhere must be accompanied by a reference to the source(s). The reviewer must inform the Editorial Office on significant similarities or coincidences between the reviewed manuscript and other published studies within the purview of the reviewer.

Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
The experts must not participate in the review of a manuscript in the case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with the authors, organizations and companies related to the manuscript.

Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration must not be used in research or otherwise. Information or ideas perceived in the course of the review and related to potential benefits must be kept confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.

Responsibilities of the Authors

The authors must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation. Submitting a manuscript for publication in the Clinical and Experimental Morphology, the authors should act in accordance with specifications posted at the web-page of the journal.

Reliability and Standards of Research
Original research articles should provide clearly stated results of the study and well-reasoned discussion of their significance. An article should comprise well-structured error-free data, experimental details and the reference list for the sake of reproducibility. Literature reviews should be concise, accurate and objective. The author(s) assume primary responsibilities for the novelty and reliability of the results. False or knowingly erroneous statements are considered unethical behavior and are completely unacceptable.

Data Access and Storage
In certain cases, the review process may require access to raw data related to the manuscript. The authors should be capable of sharing the required information, provided that the access to it does not violate the confidentiality of research participants and the rights of the data owner (a person or organization), and keep the data for at least one year since the publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
Only original works are eligible for submission to the Clinical and Experimental Morphology. In the case of using the results or statements by other authors that have influenced the study design and methodology, the authors must provide accurate links to the sources. Citation errors (misspelled names of the cited authors or periodicals, wrong volume or page numbers, etc.) are unacceptable. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable. The author(s) assume full responsibility for plagiarism of the text, pictures, etc. Any violation of the intellectual property rights will be considered in accordance with the COPE algorithm.

Multiplicity, Redundancy and Simultaneity of Publications
Manuscripts describing the results of the same study should not be published in different journals; submission of a manuscript to more than one journal at a time is unethical and unacceptable. Submission of the previously copyrighted materials, as well as submission of the manuscripts already submitted and currently considered for publication in the Clinical and Experimental Morphology to another journal, is prohibited. Upon submission, the author(s) must inform the Editorial Office about previous submissions which may be regarded as duplicate or double publication. The author(s) must notify the Editorial Office of any information in the manuscript that has been already published in previous communications by the author(s) or submitted for another publication. In such cases, the bibliography of the primary study should be covered in the second publication.

Commitment to Primary Sources
Contributions to the study, other than the contributions of the authors, should be recognized appropriately. Publications relevant to the study should be cited in the article. It is not acceptable to copy links from other publications unless the authors have familiarized themselves with the cited research papers. Information obtained privately or from confidential sources otherwise should not be used without explicit written permission from these sources or the person(s) who conveyed it.

Authorship Criteria
The list of authors must consist of individuals who significantly contributed to the study design, development of its methodology and execution of the research including collection, processing or interpretation of the data, and writing, processing or editing of the manuscript as well. Each author should participate in the making of the article to the extent sufficient to assume public responsibility for the corresponding part of its content. The order of authors in the list is determined by collective decision of the authors. Participation that only consists in securing the funding, organizational issues, supplies, etc. cannot justify the inclusion in the list of authors.

All individuals identified as authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and its submission to the Clinical and Experimental Morphology prior to the submission.

Responsibility to the Objects of the Study
The authors should be guided by the provisions of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki on the Ethical Principles of Medical Research (adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly in 1964, with the latest amendments by the 64th WMA General Assembly in 2013), as well as the principles of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes (Strasbourg, 1986). Compliance of all stages of the study with the legislation of the Russian Federation and regulatory documents of research organizations should be clearly stated in the manuscript. The study must be approved by an authorized Ethical Committee (the Editorial Office reserves the right to request corresponding documents from the authors). For human participants, informed consent is required.

Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
Potential conflicts of interest, which, in opinion of an author, may have a direct or indirect influence on the publication process, should be disclosed as early as possible. The authors must make a statement in the manuscript about the presence (absence) of financial or other conflicts of interest that might have influenced the research including collection or interpretation of the data. The sources of funding for the study must be clearly indicated in the manuscript.

Participation in the Review Process
After reviewing, the article may be returned to the author(s) for revision. The author(s) should actively participate in the review process by promptly answering reviewer's questions and making necessary corrections to the manuscript in accordance with reviewer's recommendations. The authors have right to appeal against the opinion of a reviewer and the editorial decision according to the established procedure. 

Significant Errors in the Published Materials
The author(s) must collaborate with the Editorial Office and the Publisher throughout the entire publishing sequence, from submission and initial processing of the manuscript to its final release as a journal article. In the case of identification of significant error(s) in the submitted manuscript, the author(s) must immediately inform the Editorial Office on this matter in order to make necessary corrections to the manuscript or withdraw the submission.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

MDV Group (the Publisher) is devoted to the principles and procedures that facilitate implementation of ethical duties by the Editorial/Advisory Board, reviewers and authors of the journal in accordance with the stated requirements.

The Publisher assumes responsibility for the supervision of scientific materials, including on the ethical aspects of the publications set forth in this document.

The Publisher must support the Editorial Board of the Clinical and Experimental Morphology in addressing ethical claims for published materials and assist the interactions of the Editorial Board with other periodicals and/or publishers if relevant to its duties.

The Publisher must promote good research practices and keep up with current demands and standards to refine the ethical guidelines and upgrade the procedures for submission, withdrawal, error correction, etc.

The Publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (advising or certifying) if necessary.

PROCEDURE FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICAL STANDARDS

Identification of a Violation of the Ethical Standards
• Unlawful or unethical behavior can be identified and brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief and the Publisher at any stage of the publication process.
• The claimant informing the Editor or the Publisher on deviations from ethical standards should provide sufficient information and evidence. All applications and appeals will be accepted, considered and processed.

Investigation
• Decision to conduct an investigation is made by the Editor, who may request assistance from the Publisher if required.
• Evidence of violations must be collected, while avoiding any allegations.

Minor Violations of the Ethical Standards
Processing of requests on minor violations can be implemented with the assistance of a limited number of experts. The offender must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Significant Violations of the Ethical Standards
In case of serious violations, employer of the offender must be notified. The Editor, jointly with the Publisher or a spokesperson for the Russian Society of Pathologists, decides on the need to involve the employer in the investigation or continue by examining the available data with the assistance of a limited number of experts.

Response to the Violations (the measures are listed in the increasing order of violation significance and may be applied separately or in combination)
• A notice to the offender (author or reviewer).
• Official letter to the offender (author or reviewer) indicating the fact of violation in order to prevent further deviations from ethical standards.
• Publication of a formal warning detailing the deviations.
• Official letter to employer of the offender (author or reviewer).
• Official refusal to publish, with official notice to the offender’s employer, the indexing and abstracting agencies, and the readership.
• A ban on publishing this author for a certain period of time.
• Transfer of the investigation to higher authorities for further decisions on the violations identified.

RETRACTIONS

Retraction of an already published article is an extreme measure that applies in cases of disclosure of facts unknown during the reviewing process, including:
• Disclosure of the facts of violation of the law and defamation;
• Disclosure of false or inaccurate data, especially posing health risks.

Retraction Mechanism
1. Retraction can be initiated by the authors, readers, reviewers, editors or publishers by a written appeal to the Editorial Board.
2. The appeal is considered by the Conflict Resolution Commission of the journal.
3. A positive decision on the retraction of a published article is made by the Conflict Resolution Commission of the journal in the case of sufficient grounds for the retraction.
4. The Conflict Resolution Commission of the journal notifies the initiator of the retraction on the outcome of the appeal.
5. In the case of positive decision on the retraction, the journal publishes information on the retraction, with indication of metadata of the retracted article.
6. Written notifications of the retraction, with specification of the reasons, are sent to all databases the journal is indexed in.