Aim and Scope
"Scientific Editor and Publisher" is a peer-reviewed scientific and practical journal that addresses issues related to the editing, publishing, distribution, promotion, and use of scientific literature, as well as other aspects of scientific publishing and information activities.
The journal's mission is to support the development of Russia's scientific editorial and publishing field, enhance the system of scientific publications (including journals), increase the presence of Russian scientific publications in national and international scientific and informational spaces, and advance scientific communication overall. The journal aims to provide methodological, informational-analytical, and practical support for scientific editors, founders, and publishers of scientific periodicals in their professional activities.
The journal publishes works on the following topics: editorial policy, academic writing, peer review, open access, publication ethics, international publishing standards, bibliometrics, scientometrics.
The journal accepts for publication: original articles, reviews, translations of foreign materials, expert opinions, discussion pieces, methodological and informational articles, essays, and commentaries.
Publication in the journal is free of charge for authors.
The editorial board does not charge authors for the preparation, placement, or printing of materials.
Section Policies
Library
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
EDITORIAL
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
The Journal implements two types of peer review for submitted manuscripts (chosen by authors and reviewers): double-blind and open. Correspondence between the author and reviewer occurs via email within the electronic editorial system on the journal's website.
Reviewers submit their reports through a secure online system, following the link provided in the editor’s email. The system includes guidance and a support email address for technical issues.
Criteria for Manuscript Acceptance
To be accepted for publication, a manuscript must provide a significant contribution to the understanding of the research topic, capable of impacting existing knowledge in the relevant subject area. The manuscript must also adhere to the journal’s formatting requirements for the specific type of submission. All structural components must fulfill their function rather than exist solely as formal sections.
Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by editors. To save the time of authors and reviewers, only those manuscripts that are likely to meet editorial standards are sent for formal review. Manuscripts deemed insufficiently interesting or unsuitable by the editors are rejected without external review; however, decisions may be based on informal consultations with experts in the field.
Manuscripts of potential interest are sent for double-blind review, typically to two or three reviewers, or more if a specialized opinion is required. Based on the recommendations, editors make one of the following decisions:
- Accept the manuscript as is.
- Accept the manuscript with revisions based on reviewers’ comments.
- Reject with the possibility of resubmission after significant revision.
- Reject without the possibility of resubmission, typically due to narrow scope, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual contribution, or critical technical/interpretive issues.
Reviewers may recommend a decision, but editors evaluate the strength of each reviewer’s arguments and the author’s response, while considering additional information and the overall quality of manuscripts under review.
In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, editors may consult additional reviewers or invite a meta-reviewer.
Reviewer Pool
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. Reviewers are chosen based on expertise, reputation, recommendations, and prior experience. The journal aims to engage reviewers who provide thoughtful, evidence-based evaluations, whether positive or critical.
Reviewer Protocol
The primary goal of peer review is to provide editors with the information necessary to decide on the manuscript and offer authors constructive recommendations for improvement. Reviews recommending rejection should explain the manuscript’s shortcomings, enabling authors to revise their work for submission to other journals.
Confidential comments to editors are welcome but should not contradict the main points addressed in the comments to authors.
Reviewers are asked to address the following questions to evaluate the manuscript comprehensively:
- Key Findings: Summarize the core content of the research as you understand it.
- Validity: Are there errors in the manuscript that preclude publication? If so, detail them.
- Originality and Significance: Assess the novelty of the findings and their relevance to the field. Reference previously published work if findings are not original.
- Data and Methodology: Evaluate the study’s design, data quality, and presentation. Are methods and data transparent and detailed enough for reproducibility?
- Data Analysis: Comment on the appropriateness of statistical tools and the accuracy of error and probability reporting.
- Conclusions: Are the conclusions and data interpretation justified and reliable?
- Recommendations for Revision: Suggest additional experiments or data to strengthen the study.
- References: Are the references comprehensive and relevant? Suggest additions or exclusions as needed.
- Clarity and Context: Assess whether the manuscript’s content is presented clearly and aligns with the stated aims.
- Boundaries of Expertise: Indicate if any part of the manuscript extends beyond your expertise or was not fully evaluated.
While reviewers are not required to follow this order strictly, their comments should reflect logical reasoning and cover all relevant aspects of the manuscript. Additional recommendations can be provided in free form, including confidential remarks to the editors.
Anonymity
Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors or other reviewers unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. Similarly, authors may opt for open review by keeping their names visible in submissions.
Editing Reviewer Reports
The journal does not edit reviewer reports; all comments addressed to authors are forwarded unaltered. In rare cases, comments may be moderated to soften overly harsh language or remove confidential information. Reviewers are encouraged to avoid personal remarks and focus on manuscript quality. Authors should understand that critical feedback, even when strongly worded, is not inherently unfair.
Publication Frequency
Semiannually
Open Access Policy
The authors retain the copyright for the work and grant the journal the right to first publish the work under the terms of the СС-BY-NC Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License which allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format exclusively for noncommercial purposes.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
Translations are published under the license under which they were originally published.
Archiving
Russian State Library (RSL)
National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON)
Scientific Electronic Library eLibrary.ru
Ethics of Scientific Publications
Key Responsibilities of the Publisher
(1) Preservation of the Scientific Archive: еhe publisher plays a crucial role in supporting the work of editors and reviewers to maintain the integrity of the journal's scientific archive. This includes providing resources, ensuring adherence to best practices in publishing, and upholding editorial standards.
(2) Protection of Editorial Independence: the publisher commits to preventing any external influence (financial or otherwise) on editorial decisions.
Key Responsibilities of Editors
(1) Decision-Making on Publication: the editor-in-chief holds full responsibility for deciding on the publication of articles, based on their significance and scientific value to researchers and readers.
(2) Peer Review Process: editors ensure a fair, objective, and timely review process, selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise and promoting inclusivity and diversity.
(3) Fairness and Transparency: manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit, with editorial policies transparently communicated.
(4) Confidentiality: Editors protect the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and communications with reviewers.
(5) Conflict of Interest: any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed and considered when making editorial decisions.
Key Responsibilities of Reviewers
(1) Assisting Editorial Decisions: reviewers provide constructive feedback to help editors make decisions and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
(2) Confidentiality: manuscripts under review are treated as confidential and must not be shared with third parties.
(3) Ethical Standards and Independence: reviewers must evaluate submissions objectively, avoiding personal bias or conflicts of interest.
Key Responsibilities of Authors
(1) Accountability and Standards: authors must accurately present their research, providing detailed and reliable data that can be reproduced.
(2) Data Access and Retention: authors should provide data upon request and ensure it is securely stored for verification.
(3) Originality and Source Attribution: authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their work, properly citing prior research, and avoiding plagiarism. Manuscripts must not duplicate previous publications, except for conference abstracts or theses.
(4) Authorship Criteria: authorship is limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
(5) Conflict of Interest Disclosure: manuscripts must include disclosures of any relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest.
(6) Notification of Errors: if a significant error or inaccuracy is found in a published work, authors must promptly notify the editor and cooperate to correct or retract the article.
Principles of Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Researchers are entitled to freely conduct research and share their findings without censorship, while adhering to principles of intellectual honesty and avoiding harm to individuals, society, or the environment.
Positive and Negative Impact of Research
Research must respect the dignity and rights of subjects and communities, as well as material and intangible heritage, natural resources, and the environment. Indirect harm, such as stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of findings, must be considered.
Ethical Review for Human and Animal Studies
Studies involving human participants require informed consent and ethical committee approval. Statements confirming adherence to ethical standards must be included in the manuscript.
Editorial Independence
The journal ensures editorial decisions are based solely on scientific criteria, free from commercial or external influences. This includes decisions on peer review, acceptance, rejection, and publication.
Appeal Policy
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request within one month of receiving the decision. Appeals are considered only for manuscripts that underwent peer review. Appeals must include detailed responses to editorial and reviewer comments, supported by evidence.
Authorship
Each author must contribute significantly to the work's conception, execution, or interpretation. The corresponding author ensures all co-authors have approved the manuscript and takes responsibility for communications with the journal.
Acknowledgment of Contributions
The journal supports transparency by publishing statements detailing each author's contribution using the CRediT taxonomy.
Author Identification
Authors are required to provide an ORCID identifier to enhance transparency in the publication process.
Article Retraction Policy
Purpose of Retraction
The goal of retraction is to inform readers about materials containing significant errors or unreliable data that cannot be trusted. Data unreliability may arise from honest mistakes or deliberate misconduct, such as duplicate publications, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could distort data interpretation or recommendations for use. Retraction also serves to uphold scientific integrity by warning other researchers and readers against using the results of the retracted article in subsequent studies. Its primary function is to maintain the reliability of scientific research by removing misleading or inaccurate data from circulation. Retraction thus contributes to upholding high scientific standards and trust in published research, ensuring that only reliable and accurate data remain within the scientific community.
The editorial board of the journal Science Editor and Publisher, following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the "Rules for Retraction" of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), adheres to the following retraction policy.
Grounds for Retraction
Articles may be retracted due to violations of scientific publishing ethics, including:
- Incorrect and/or unattributed borrowing (plagiarism);
- Duplicate publication in multiple outlets;
- Self-plagiarism;
- Falsification or fabrication of data (e.g., manipulation of experimental results);
- Identification of significant errors in the publication (e.g., incorrect interpretation of research findings), undermining its scientific value;
- Misrepresentation of authorship (including individuals who do not meet authorship criteria);
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- Republishing an article without the author's consent;
- Other violations of publication ethics.
A retraction confirms that the article contains violations. While authors may disagree with the decision, the journal retains the right to proceed with the retraction process. Articles may be retracted by the authors or by the journal's editorial board. Retraction is not intended as a tool to discredit authors but as a mechanism to ensure the transparency and integrity of scientific communication and knowledge dissemination.
When a retraction decision is made based on an expert review, triggered by third-party information or an author’s request, the authors are formally notified. Authors (or the corresponding author in case of collective authorship) must review and acknowledge the reasoning for retraction. If authors refuse to retract, the editorial board reserves the right to proceed without their consent, as it bears responsibility for the journal's content and data accuracy.
Retraction Procedure
The retraction process is initiated by the editor-in-chief based on expert review and the authors’ responses to specific concerns. Authors either agree to the retraction or present convincing arguments against it. The editorial board makes the final decision on retraction.
Author-Initiated Retraction: Authors submit a written request to the editorial board explaining the reasons (e.g., errors in the presented data or unauthorized use of third-party information). If the board agrees to the retraction, it is implemented in line with COPE guidelines and ASEP ethical standards. If the board does not respond, authors may appeal to the ASEP Ethics Council.
Third-Party-Initiated Retraction: The editorial board conducts an expert review based on third-party claims and notifies the authors of its decision. If ignored, the editorial board may proceed independently.
Retraction decisions are documented in an editorial board meeting protocol. The retraction statement includes:
- Author(s)’ name(s), article title, journal name, publication details, and DOI;
- The party initiating the retraction;
- Grounds for retraction (e.g., plagiarism, duplication, with references to the original source);
- Date of decision and link to the article metadata page on the journal’s website, containing the retraction notice and the full text marked as "RETRACTED."
In rare cases, articles may need to be removed entirely (e.g., defamatory content or threats to public health). Metadata (title and authors) will be retained, with an explanation of why the article was removed.
The editor-in-chief sends the retraction protocol to:
- National Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases. While article information remains in the system, its indexing in databases like RSCI is removed, and the retraction note is appended.
- ASEP’s Ethics Council for inclusion in the Retraction Database.
- Relevant dissertation councils if the article is referenced in academic defenses.
Retraction information is also published as a separate file on the journal's website.
Consequences
Based on the expert review, the editorial board may impose a publication ban on the author(s) for a specific period. This step ensures that the integrity and credibility of the journal are upheld.
Policy on the Use of Generative AI
With the development of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies increasingly used by authors in creating scientific manuscripts, the journal Science Editor and Publisher has established a policy to regulate their use. The journal will closely monitor advancements in this field and revise its policy as necessary.
Policy for Authors
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools in Scientific Writing
This policy applies exclusively to the writing process and does not cover the use of AI for data analysis or deriving scientific conclusions during research.
Purpose of AI Use
Authors may use generative AI and AI tools solely to enhance the readability and linguistic quality of their manuscripts. Such tools must be used under human supervision, with the output carefully reviewed and edited by the authors. It is important to recognize that AI can generate text that appears authoritative but may contain inaccuracies, incomplete information, or biases.
Responsibility and Disclosure
Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their work. The use of AI tools must be disclosed in the manuscript, and this disclosure will be included in the published article to ensure transparency and build trust among all participants in the publication process.
Exclusion of AI as an Author
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship implies responsibility and the fulfillment of tasks that only humans can perform. Authors must ensure their work is original, complies with ethical standards, and does not infringe on the rights of third parties.
Use of AI in Illustrations and Graphic Content
Prohibition on AI-Generated or Altered Images
The use of generative AI or AI tools to create, alter, or process images in manuscripts is prohibited. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, and color balance are permitted only if they do not distort the presented data.
Exception
If the use of AI is part of the research methodology (e.g., biomedical imaging), it must be thoroughly described in the "Methods" section, including the name and specifications of the AI tool used.
Policy for Reviewers
Confidentiality and Use of AI Tools
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents, and uploading them or any parts of them to AI tools is prohibited, as it may breach author confidentiality and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to review comments, which may contain sensitive information about the manuscript and its authors.
The use of generative AI to assist in scientific reviewing is not permitted, as the peer review process requires critical thinking and independent evaluation, which are beyond AI's capabilities. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reviews.
AI in Editorial Tools
The journal allows the use of secure AI technologies for tasks such as checking manuscript completeness, plagiarism, and finding suitable reviewers, provided confidentiality standards are upheld.
Policy for Editors
Confidentiality of Manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted for consideration must remain confidential. Uploading them or any parts of them to AI tools is prohibited, as this may violate the authors' rights and confidentiality. Similarly, the use of generative AI to assist in making editorial decisions is not allowed.
Manuscript evaluation requires critical thinking and an objective approach, which can only be provided by human editors. Editors are fully responsible for the editorial process, final decisions regarding manuscripts, and communicating those decisions to authors.
Policies for Authors
Correction and Retraction of Articles by Authors Post-Publication
The journal Science Editor and Publisher acknowledges the importance of maintaining the integrity and completeness of the scientific archive for the benefit of the scientific community and places great emphasis on preserving trust in the authority of its published articles. Published articles should remain accurate and unaltered except in the cases outlined below. However, circumstances may arise where an article needs to be corrected, withdrawn, or even retracted.
The editorial board is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is guided by editorial policies and bound by legal requirements, such as laws on defamation, copyright infringement, and privacy issues. Thus, the integrity of the scientific archive as a permanent record of published scientific research is of paramount importance. If corrections to the scientific archive are necessary, authors and other stakeholders involved in a specific case are notified, and a record of the case review and the decision is made available on the article's page to ensure transparency for the scientific community.
The journal's policy on correcting the scientific archive is reviewed and updated as standards evolve and best practices emerge.
Authors Identifying Errors in Their Published Articles
Authors who identify an error in their published article should contact the journal as soon as possible using the contact information provided on the journal’s website.
In most cases, the corresponding author is responsible for reporting errors to the journal. The editor or a designated representative (e.g., a member of the editorial team with relevant expertise) reviews the correction proposal along with any supporting data or information. The correction may be sent for additional peer review. The editor determines the appropriate mechanism for correcting the article and may consult the journal’s editorial board and ASEP Ethics Council on matters of research integrity and publication ethics before making a final decision.
Corrigendum
A corrigendum is published when an error or omission needs correction but does not affect the integrity or conclusions of the article. The corrigendum must be prepared by the authors, with all authors agreeing to its publication. The corrigendum will be linked to the article it corrects and made available on the article's page on the journal’s website.
In rare cases, if the publisher is responsible for an error introduced during publication, the journal will issue an erratum. The erratum will also be linked to the corrected article and published on its page on the journal’s website.
Withdrawal of Accepted Manuscripts
A manuscript in the "accepted for publication" status (an early version of the article that has been accepted but not yet formally published) may be withdrawn prior to final publication if:
- Errors are discovered in the manuscript.
- The manuscript duplicates previously published work.
- The editor determines that the authors violated editorial policies (e.g., multiple submissions, false authorship claims, plagiarism, or data fraud).
- The early version was published in error by the editor or during production.
When articles in the "accepted for publication" status are withdrawn, their content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with an HTML page and PDF stating that the article has been withdrawn in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policy, with a link to this policy.
Retraction of Published Articles
Articles may be retracted to address errors that affect the reliability of the results when such errors are too significant to issue an erratum or due to violations of the journal’s policies.
The journal editors or their designated representatives, in consultation with the ASEP Ethics Council regarding research integrity and publication ethics, may consider retraction if:
- There is evidence that results are unreliable due to significant error (e.g., miscalculations or experimental errors) or misconduct (e.g., data manipulation or fabrication).
- The article contains plagiarism.
- The results were previously published in another outlet, and proper attribution, notification, or permission was not provided (duplicate publication).
- The material or data was published without proper authorization.
- Copyright infringement or other legal issues (e.g., defamation or privacy violations) are identified.
- The research violates ethical standards for studies involving humans or animals or contravenes the journal’s policies on research ethics.
- There is evidence of compromised peer review or manipulation of the editorial process.
- Authorship fraud (e.g., purchased authorship) or citation manipulation is discovered.
- Authors failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest that could have substantially influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of editors and/or reviewers.
Permission for Third-Party Material Use
The journal's policy on obtaining permissions for using third-party material includes the following key provisions:
Mandatory Permissions
Any reproduction of substantial parts of copyrighted works requires formal permission from the copyright holder. This applies to text and visual materials such as illustrations, diagrams, tables, and photographs.
Obtaining Permissions
To acquire permission to use material published by another publisher, authors should:
- Identify the copyright holder of the material.
- Contact the copyright holder for formal written permission.
- Ensure the permission explicitly covers the intended use, specifying that it is for publication in a scientific article.
Documentation of Permissions
Written permission must be included in the manuscript submission, and appropriate attribution must be provided as specified by the copyright holder.
Author Responsibility
Authors are responsible for ensuring:
- Documentation of permissions.
- Compliance with license terms (e.g., Creative Commons conditions).
- Proper attribution in the article text or figure/table captions.
Exceptions
No permission is required for:
- Public domain materials.
- Materials under open licenses (e.g., Creative Commons), provided license terms are met.
Access to Data
The journal supports transparency and reproducibility of research. Authors must provide additional data upon request to validate the findings in their article.
Formats and Access
Data should be provided in reusable formats (e.g., CSV, Excel, PDF). Data may be:
- Shared directly with reviewers through the journal platform.
- Deposited in public repositories, such as Zenodo or Mendeley Data.
Confidentiality
Additional data shared for review remains confidential and accessible only to reviewers and the editorial team.
Publication of Additional Data
Authors are encouraged to publish additional data in public repositories with open access, citing the repository in the article to support transparency and further scientific use.
Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interest
To ensure transparency and allow readers to assess potential biases, the journal Science Editor and Publisher requires authors to declare any financial and/or non-financial interests related to the research described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors of the article.
A conflict of interest is defined as any financial or non-financial interest that could directly undermine or be perceived as undermining the objectivity, integrity, and value of the publication, potentially influencing the authors' judgment and actions regarding the objective presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data.
Financial Conflicts of Interest
Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) from organizations that may gain or lose financially from the publication. Any role played by the funding organization in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation must be disclosed.
Employment: Recent (during the period of the research), current, or anticipated employment in any organization that may gain or lose financially from the publication.
Personal Financial Interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially from the publication; consulting fees or other remuneration (including payments for participation in symposia) from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications (granted or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions, whose value may be affected by the publication. For patents and applications, the following details should be disclosed: applicant (author or institution), name of the inventor(s), application number, application status, and the specific aspect of the manuscript covered by the patent application.
Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest
Non-financial conflicts of interest may take various forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations or individuals. Authors and reviewers must disclose any unpaid roles or relationships that could influence the publication process. Examples of non-financial conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Unpaid membership in a governmental or non-governmental organization.
- Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization.
- Unpaid advisory roles in commercial organizations.
- Consulting activities for a company.
Responsibilities of Authors
Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest during the manuscript submission process through the submission system. The corresponding author is required to provide the declaration on behalf of all authors. In cases of double-anonymous review, reviewers will receive a minimal statement indicating the presence of financial or non-financial interests to avoid revealing the authors' identities.
Regardless of the review model, all authors must include a declaration at the end of the published article about the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, using one of the following standard statements:
- "The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: ..."
- "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
- "The authors declare that confidentiality agreements prevent disclosure of conflicts of interest related to this work."
Responsibilities of Reviewers
The journal Science Editor and Publisher encourages reviewers to exclude themselves from the review process if a significant conflict of interest exists. Reviewers must inform editors of any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as significant. Editors will consider these disclosures when evaluating reviewer recommendations.
Derivation and Plagiarism
During the consideration of an article, the editorial staff of the journal Science Editor and Publisher may conduct a verification of the submitted materials with the help the Anti-plagiarism system. In the case of the discovery of multiple incidents of content matching, the editorial staff acts in accordance with the rules of COPE.
Policy on Preprint and Postprint Deposition
During the submission process, the author must confirm that the article has not been published and or accepted for publication in any other journal. When citing articles published in the journal Science Editor and Publisher, the publisher requests the authors to provide a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Articles, which have been previously posted by the author on personal and or public websites that have no relationship to any other publishers, are allowed to be submitted to the journal.
CrossMark Policy
CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal "Science Editor and Publisher" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.
