Publication Ethics
1. Publishing ethics of Camera Praehistorica Journal
1.1. The Camera Praehistorica maintains the highest standards of publication ethics as defined in the Copyright Act of Russia (Chapter 70) and international COPE Guide to Ethical Editing.
1.2. In accordance with Article 29 of The Constitution of the Russian Federation, the papers that are submitted for publication must not incite to extremism, racial or ethnic hatred.
1.3. Papers that report on the results of non-authorized excavations or other materials that were acquired illegally are unacceptable.
2. Editors’ ethic
2.1. Editors responsibilities
2.1.1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2.1.2. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.1.3. Decision on the publication of article is taken on the base of obligatory double-blind peer review of the manuscript.
2.1.4. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if conflicts of interest are revealed after publication.
2.1.5. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.
2.2. Confidentiality
2.2.1. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.2.2. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
2.3. Conflicts of interests
2.3.1. Editors should refuse from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
3. Authors’ ethics
3.1. Authorship of the Paper
3.1.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
3.1.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on 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.
3.2. Human and animal subjects in research
3.2.1. Any author who conducts research with human participants or animal subjects needs to complying Russian Federation legislation, and local regulations. For human participants these provisions designed to ensure that risks to human subjects are minimized; that risks are reasonable given the expected benefits; that the participants or their authorized representatives provide informed consent; that the investigator has informed participants of key elements of the study protocol; and that the privacy of participants and the confidentiality of data are maintained.
3.2.2. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects.
3.3. Authors’ responsibilities
3.3.1. Authors are fully responsible for the contents of their papers. They guarantee that submitted Manuscript is original paper that have not been published before and are not pending publication elsewhere.
3.3.2. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Information obtained by private communication, correspondence or discussions with third parties should not be used without the express written consent of the correspondent source. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
3.3.3. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3.3.4. The authors should discuss arguable issues on the principles of scientific correctness towards their colleagues.
3.3.5. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
3.3.6. Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process.
3.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
3.4.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. In case a conflict of interest is discovered after the article is published a corresponding correction must be applied.
4. Reviewers' ethic and peer-review process
4.1. Principles of a peer-reviewing
4.1.1. All articles submitted to the editorial board undergo a double-blind peer review. The reviewer’s personal data are not disclosed to the authors and vice versa. This guarantees the unbiased motivated reviews and assures a freedom for critical comments concerning the content of the articles to be published.
4.1.2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. They should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
4.2. Requirements to reviewers
4.2.1. Reviewers must be qualified experts in their field. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
4.3. Conflict of interests.
4.3.1. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4.4. Confidentiality
4.4.1. Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
4.4.2. Confidential information or ideas obtained as a result of reviewing must remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes.
5. Publishers’ ethic
5.1. Publisher responsibilities
5.1.1. CP publisher is Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is committed to adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of CP in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines.
5.1.2. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.1.3. CP publisher ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and timely publication of content.
5.1.4. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a correction statement or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, may be relevant.
6. Retraction policy
6.1. Retraction.
6.1.1. Retraction is a notice that the paper should not be regarded as part of the scientific literature. Retraction is aimed at correcting errors in publications and informing the readership about those papers comprising erroneous data. A retraction mechanism of Camera Praehistorica is applied in compliance with the COPE protocol.
6.2. The reasons for retraction of articles:
- The editors or publisher or author have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error, or as a result of fabrication or falsification;
- The editors or publisher receive evidence of multiple publications or multiple submissions;
- The editors or publisher reveal the fact of a deliberate or non-intentional concealment of a conflict of interest, which could have affected the interpretation of the data or recommendations on the use of the obtained results;
- The paper constitutes plagiarism;
- The paper reports on the results of non-authorized excavations or other materials that were acquired illegally;
- The paper contains material or data without authorization for use.
6.3. Retraction mechanism:
- In any of the cases listed in 6.2 the Camera Praehistorica shall publish a retraction note as soon as it possible to minimize harmful effects;
- Retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the journal and listed in the contents list;
- The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note.
6.4. Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
- The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings;
- The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns;
- An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation;
- Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.
7. Intellectual property
Intellectual property issues in the Camera Praehistorica are governed by the Russian Federation legislation and respective international norms and agreements.