Ethical policy

Ethical policy

We follow the latest Core Practice Guidelines for Editors and Journal publishers as outlined by the COPE on the following practices:

The scientific journal «Social Economics» adheres to COPE guidelines for retractions.

We adhere to clear ethical principles to ensure that content is produced and disseminated responsibly and ethically.

Accuracy and fact-checking. We publish only reliable information, thoroughly fact-checking before publication, and promptly correcting any errors in a transparent manner.

Editorial independence. Our decisions are independent; third parties are not able to influence the content.

Transparency. We openly declare any conflicts of interest or connections with third parties, providing clear links to sources and contributors.

Diversity and inclusion. We respect and support diversity by representing different perspectives in our content.

Privacy. We respect the right to privacy, protecting personal information in accordance with applicable laws.

Copyright. We respect intellectual property and avoid copyright infringement.

Non-discrimination. We do not publish content that discriminates against individuals or groups on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.

Responsibility. We take full responsibility for the content we publish and respond promptly to comments and complaints.

Authorship and AI tools

Authors should not list AI-assisted technologies, such as LLMs, chatbots, or image creators, as authors or co-authors. AI tools used in research or manuscript preparation must be transparently disclosed in the cover letter, acknowledgments, and methods section. Authors are responsible for accuracy, avoiding plagiarism, and guarding against AI-induced bias. Editors may reject manuscripts for inappropriate AI use, and reviewers must refrain from AI-generated reviews to maintain confidentiality.  

See also: COPE position statement about authorship and AI tools

AI-generated images and other multimedia are not allowed in our journal without explicit permission from the editors.  Exceptions may be considered for content in manuscript directly related to AI or machine learning, subject to evaluation on an individual basis.

DORA & FAIR Policy

The journal «Social Economics» upholds international standards of academic integrity, transparency, and responsible evaluation of scientific results. In its activities, the editorial board is guided by the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which promote openness, reproducibility, and accessibility of scientific materials.

DORA Principles Compliance Policy

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) establishes standards for a responsible, non-discriminatory, and objective approach to the evaluation of scientific activity.

  1. Rejection of the Use of Journal Metrics as the Main Evaluation Criterion

The editorial board does not use the impact factor or other journal-oriented metrics as indicators of the quality of individual articles. 

Decisions regarding the acceptance of a manuscript for publication are based solely on scientific value, originality, methodological transparency and quality of argumentation.

  1. Priority of Content Over Metrics

Manuscripts are evaluated based on their content, not on the authors' affiliations, prestige of institutions, or level of funding. 

The editorial board encourages detailed descriptions of the methods, data, and analytical procedures for an objective assessment of the research. 

  1. Support for Various Forms of Scientific Results

The journal recognizes the importance of full-text articles, research data, software code, methodological developments, representative materials, negative results, and replication studies. 

All such materials are accepted for publication on equal terms, provided that they meet the editorial requirements. 

  1. Transparency of the Review Process

Editorial decisions must be substantiated. 

A double-blind peer review was conducted in accordance with the publication's policy and COPE international standards. 

  1. Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

All decisions underwent independent expert evaluations. 

Editorial board members do not participate in decision-making regarding their own manuscripts or those of individuals with whom they have financial, familial or professional relationships.

FAIR Principles Compliance Policy

The FAIR principles aim to ensure the accessibility, reusability, and interoperability of scientific data and related materials.

  1. Findability

Authors must provide complete metadata to describe their research.

Data associated with published results should be placed in repositories that assign persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI).

  1. Accessibility

Data should be available in an open format or through a clearly described access procedure.

Access to data should not be restricted by artificial barriers such as paywalls. In cases where full disclosure is not possible (e.g., due to ethical or legal restrictions), the authors are required to provide a justified explanation.

  1. Interoperability

Data should be presented in standardized formats that are compatible with international storage and analytics systems.

Authors must ensure the use of widely recognized metadata structures.

  1. Reusability

Data and materials must be provided with a clear usage license, if applicable.

Authors are required to provide a sufficient description of the research context, methods, and tools so that external researchers can reproduce or reuse the data.

Authors’ Obligations

  • All authors must adhere to the principles of DORA and FAIR when submitting materials for publication in this journal.
  • The manuscript must include a Data Availability statement.
  • The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the submitted data and compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

Obligations of the Editorial Board

 The journal ensures a responsible, objective, and non-discriminatory evaluation of manuscripts. 

  • The peer review, decision-making, and publication processes are independent of any commercial or institutional influence. 
  • The editorial board provides the technical conditions for the placement and verification of metadata and facilitates the proper implementation of FAIR principles.

Policy Violations

If the authors fail to adhere to the DORA and FAIR principles, the editorial board may request revisions to the materials, reject the manuscript, or publish appropriate corrections in accordance with the international COPE guidelines.

Ethical Research Involving Humans

The ethical policy of «Social Economics» regarding research involving human participants is based on the international standards of academic integrity and COPE recommendations. The journal considers only those manuscripts that comply with ethical protocols aimed at protecting the rights, safety, and dignity of the research participants.

General Principles

Authors submitting manuscripts based on research involving human participants are required to ensure that such studies comply with the national legislation, ethical standards, and international bioethics conventions. All procedures must be transparent, justified, and must not harm the participants.

Ethical Approval 

  • All studies involving humans must be pre-approved by the appropriate institutional ethics committee or its equivalent. 
  • Authors must provide the editorial office with a clear reference to the ethical approval, including the approval number, date, and name of the issuing authority. 
  • Studies that do not require ethical approval under national legislation must be accompanied by appropriate justification from the authors.

Informed Consent

  • The authors must confirm that voluntary informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
  • In cases where participants are unable to provide consent themselves (e.g., minors or  individuals with limited decision-making capacity), consent from their legal representatives is required.
  • Manuscripts must include a description of the consent procedures.

Confidentiality and Anonymity 

  • All participants’ personal data were anonymized or presented in a depersonalized form. 
  • The authors are responsible for complying with legislation regarding personal data protection and confidentiality.

Vulnerable groups

Research involving vulnerable groups (minors, elderly people, persons with disabilities, and individuals in difficult life circumstances) must comply with heightened standards of ethical oversight and safety.

Risks and Safety

Authors must describe the potential risks to participants and the measures taken to minimize them. Studies that create unjustified risks are not eligible for publication.

Ethics Violations 

If any breaches of the publication’s ethical standards are identified, actions will be taken in accordance with the COPE recommendations. This may include rejecting the manuscript, publishing a correction, or retracting an already-published article.

Conflict of interest

The «Social Economics» journal follow the principles which outline in:

  Common Standard for Conflict of Interest Disclosure published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

  Guidelines published on good publication and the Code of Conduct by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

A conflict of interest is understood to mean anything that interferes or may interfere with the full, proper, and objective procedure for considering and deciding on the publication of research articles or other materials.

A conflict of interest is considered to exist if individuals involved in the editorial process have relationships with each other, personal or otherwise, that could potentially compromise them or interfere with objectivity or influence the resolution of issues related to publication.

When submitting an article, the author must declare all possible conflicts of interest. After manuscripts are assigned for review, reviewers are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may arise.

The author designated by the co-authors as responsible for correspondence with the editors (corresponding author) must declare any conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors.

Conflicts of interest may also arise from employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership in relevant organizations, or other circumstances that may bias the decision-making of those responsible.

Authors should disclose any financial or other material conflict of interest that could influence the results presented or their interpretation, and inform the Editorial Board about this. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/affiliations with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.

Editors should not edit/manage manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, joint or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or companies or institutions associated with the research.

  • Conflicts of interest of all authors, reviewers, and editors must be declared and handled transparently.
  • The Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, members of the editorial board, and the editorial staff do not influence the review process of their own manuscripts.
  • The Editor-in-Chiefdoes not participate in the editorial process when their own manuscript is under consideration. The editorial board appoints an editor to handle manuscripts in which the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author. The Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure.
  • The Deputy Editor-in-Chiefrecuses themselves from the consideration of their own manuscript. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure.
  • Members of the editorial boardwho submit manuscripts withdraw from participation in the editorial process concerning their own texts. The manuscript is handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest and is not affiliated with the author. A manuscript submitted by a member of the editorial board undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure. Publication statistics of editorial board members are regularly monitored in order to avoid excessive representation in the journal.
  • Editorial staff
    Must adhere to the same principles of independence and conflict-of-interest management as members of the editorial board. Manuscripts submitted by editorial staff undergo the standard double-blind peer review procedure.

Any declarations of conflict of interest made by authors, reviewers or editors are reviewed by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and/or Editor-in-Chief of the publication. In the case of substantiated claims of a conflict of interest with the Editor-in-Chief of the publication, such declarations are reviewed by two members of the editorial board of the publication.

Guidelines for the retraction of published articles

The scientific journal «Social Economics» adheres to COPE guidelines for retractions.

  1. Purpose of Retraction Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and ensuring its integrity, not for punishing authors. Articles are retracted if they contain seriously flawed or erroneous content or data, meaning their findings and conclusions can no longer be relied upon.
  2. Grounds for Retraction

Editors may decide to retract a publication in the following instances:

  • Unreliable Data: Clear evidence of major errors, data or image manipulation, or unintentional miscalculations that compromise the findings.
  • Plagiarism and Redundancy: Identification of an unacceptable level of overlap with previously published content or findings published elsewhere without proper attribution or justification.
  • Ethical Misconduct: Reports of unethical research practices or failure to disclose a major conflict of interest that could unduly affect interpretations.
  • Compromised Process: Evidence of compromised peer review (e.g., fake reviewers) or systematic manipulation of the publication process (e.g., paper mills).
  • Authorship and Legal Issues: Unverifiable or fictitious authorship, undisclosed involvement of AI, or serious legal issues such as copyright infringement or libel.
  1. Retraction Procedure Stages
  2. Initiation: A retraction request can be made by authors, institutions, readers, or the editor.
  3. Investigation: The editorial board investigates the concerns. If the investigation is delayed, an "Expression of Concern" may be issued.
  4. Decision-Making: The final decision rests with the editor. Retraction may proceed even if some or all authors do not agree.
  5. Author Notification: The editor notifies the authors regarding the reasons for the loss of confidence and why the issue cannot be resolved by a correction.
  6. Publication of Notice:
    • The notice must be published as soon as possible and remain freely accessible to all readers.
    • It must identify the article (title/authors) and state who is retracting the article and the reasons why.
    • The notice must be linked to the retracted article in all journal versions.
  7. Article Identification: All versions of the original article (PDF and HTML) should be watermarked as "RETRACTED". The original work is retained online to ensure the transparency of the scientific record.

Procedure for handling complaints regarding publication ethics misconduct

The procedure for handling complaints by the editorial board of the academic journal «Social Economics» is based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding the handling of reports of potential misconduct.

  1. Grounds for Filing a Complaint

A complaint or allegation of misconduct may be submitted if there are reasonable suspicions regarding:

  • Data Manipulation: Fabrication, falsification, or improper alteration of research findings.
  • Plagiarism: Misappropriation of ideas, text, or results of others without proper attribution.
  • Authorship Issues: Inclusion of "gift" authors, exclusion of contributors, or submission without co-authors' consent.
  • Conflict of Interest: Failure to disclose financial or personal ties that could influence objectivity.
  • Peer Review Manipulation: Compromising the review process, reviewer bias, or theft of ideas during the evaluation.
  • Ethical Violations: Lack of ethics committee approval for research involving human or animal subjects.
  1. Step-by-Step Editorial Action Plan

Step 1: Registration and Initial Assessment. The editorial office acknowledges receipt of the complaint. The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the allegation contains sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Anonymous complaints are considered if they provide specific facts.

Step 2: Communication with Authors. The editor contacts the authors with an official inquiry for clarification, maintaining a presumption of integrity until the investigation is concluded.

Step 3: Analysis of Arguments. If the authors' response is unsatisfactory or indicates misconduct, the editorial board involves an internal committee or independent experts for detailed analysis.

Step 4: Institutional Referral. In cases of suspected serious misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) that the journal cannot verify independently, the editor contacts the author’s institution to request a formal investigation.

Step 5: Decision-Making. Based on the gathered evidence or institutional findings, the editor decides on the outcome: dismissal of the complaint, publication of a Correction, an Expression of Concern, or a Retraction.

Step 6: Informing the Parties. The editorial office notifies the complainant and the authors of the outcome. All records related to the case are maintained in the journal’s confidential archives.