- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The key objectives of the journal are the following:
- to shape a discussion site to debate acute economic and legal issues of developing the Russian model of federative relations and local self-governance and to improve pursuance of regional policy on federal and regional levels;
- to publish articles and analytical materials dealing with theory and practice of developing federative relations characterizing home and global experience of building economic foundation of federal state system (economics of federal relations) and local self governance;
- to arrange discussion of acute problems of regional policy of the Russian Federation, trends of improving state regional policy in the Russian Federation and in its entities.
The journal publishes articles on economic and legal subjects of federative relations, local self-governance, regional policy, budget relations, situation on regional markets. Topical issues of interaction between the federal center and entities of the Russian Federation, as well as entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities are studied.
All copies are reviewed by members of the editorial board and/or external experts.
All copies are checked for anti-plagiarism.Section Policies
Open Submissions
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
1 time per 3 months
Open Access Policy
"Federalism" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Each article submitted to the publishing house of the journal ‘Federalism’ will necessarily undergo the process of reviewing.
1. Without reviewing only articles by members and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the journal editorial board can be published.
2. Authors are not charged for article reviewing.
3. Written opinions of a scientific adviser or consultant cannot replace the reviewing.
4. Requirements to reviewers:
4.1 The journal editorship can attract members of the editorial board and external experts as reviewers. Reviewers shall have the degree of Doctor of Science or PhD.
4.2 Experts working in the same division of the university or research institute, where the research was done cannot be attracted as reviewers.
5. The procedure of accepting typescript for consideration.
5.1 Copies of academic articles sent for potential publication in the journal ‘Federalism’ are accepted for consideration and registered by responsible secretary.
5.2 The responsible secretary checks the compliance of the work with the journal subject, requirements dealing with the article and accompanying documents’ design, which are advanced to authors of academic articles.
5.3 Materials that do not meet these requirements will be returned to authors with explanation of reasons for rejecting the article.
5.4 Materials that meet these requirements will be sent for reviewing.
5.5. The responsible secretary within three days will inform authors about receiving the article.
5.6 The article will be delivered to the reviewer without mentioning any information about authors.
5.7 The maximum period of reviewing - from the date of arrival to announcing the decision - will make up 1 month.
6. The procedure of reviewers’ work
6.1 Reviewers are notified that copies submitted to them are the intellectual property of authors and regarded as information not liable for disclosing.
6.2 Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their own needs.
6.3 Reviewers are not authorized to use knowledge about the article content in their interests before its publishing.
6.4 Reviewing is carried out anonymously.
6.5 The review is provided to the article author by his/her written request without the signature and stating the family name, position and work place of the reviewer.
6.6 Reviews are submitted to VAK by requests of expert councils.
7. Requirements to the review content
7.1 The review shall contain the assessment of:
- Topicality of the subject and novelty of its revealing;
- Theoretical and practical importance of the article;
- Clear and comprehensive for the reader style of writing;
- Relevant and advanced methods of research;
- Substantiation of author’s conclusions.
7.2 The final section of the review shall provide the grounded conclusion about the work in general and clear recommendations on feasibility of its publication in the journal in the presented form or about the necessity of its revision or alteration (pointing out to author’s inaccuracy or errors).
7.3 Availability of positive review is not a sound reason for article publication.
7.4 In case the review contains recommendations on article revision, it is sent for revision and shall be submitted for reviewing within the period mentioned by the editorship.
7.5 Reviews of articles are kept in the publishing house and editorial office for min 5 years.
8. The procedure of authors’ informing about reviewing results
8.1 The decision about feasibility of publication after reviewing is made by the Chief Editor and if necessary - at the meeting of the editorial board dealing with shaping the next issue of the journal.
8.2 Authors of rejected articles will receive a properly motivated refusal within 10 days after getting negative review. The editorial office does not start the discussion or correspondence with authors.
8.3 After the editorial board’s decision to accept the article for publication the responsible secretary will inform the author about it and state the date of publication.
8.4 At all stages of work with articles and communications with authors, editors and reviewers E-mail is used. Therefore, authors should be careful about their E-mail addresses and should inform the editorial office about their changes.
8.5 The article revised by the author is considered a new one.
9. The publishing house of the journal does not keep materials not accepted for printing. Works accepted for printing are not returned.
10. The following articles are not allowed for publication:
- Articles that are not designed in a proper way, whose authors refuse to revise their technical aspect ;
- Articles, whose authors do not respond to constructive remarks of reviewers by way of their implementation or refutation;
- Articles containing more than 80% of previously published materials.
Indexation
Articles in "Issledovaniya i praktika v meditsine" («Research ‘n Practical Medicine Journal») are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
This section was prepared by materials of editing academic and medical literature Elsevier and materials of the International Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Introduction
1.1 Publication of materials in reviewed journals is not only a simple way of academic communications but also a serious contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is essential for the journal ‘Federalism’ to fix standards of future ethic behavior of those involved in publication: authors, journal editors and reviewers.
1.2 The journal supports academic communications and bears responsibility for observing all current recommendations in the work being published.
1.3 The journal assumes responsibility for supervision of academic materials, which provide an unbiased ‘report’ on the development of academic thought and research, thus we also understand the responsibility for proper providing these ‘reports’, especially in view of ethic aspects of publications depicted in this document.
2. Editors’ responsibility
The Chief Editor of the journal ‘Federalism’ assumes responsibility for making decisions about publication. Trustworthiness of the work and its scientific importance has always underlain decisions about publication. The Chief Editor can be guided by policy of the editorial board of the journal and normative and legal requirements concerning slander, copyright, legitimacy and plagiarism.
The Chief Editor can discuss decisions about publication with editors and reviewers.
2.2 Honesty
The Chief Editor shall assess intellectual content of works irrespective of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of authors.
2.3 Confidentiality
The Chief Editor and the editorial board of the journal ‘Federalism’ shall not, without serious necessity, disclose information about the accepted work.
2.4 Policy of disclosing information and conflicts of interests
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted for consideration articles cannot be used in private research without written agreement from the author. Information and ideas that were received during reviewing and are connected with potential advantages shall be kept confidential and cannot be used for private benefit.
2.4.2 Editors shall withdraw from article consideration (and namely: address the responsible secretary or cooperate with other members of the editorial board) instead of personal reviewing and decision-making in case of conflict of interests due to competitive, joint or other interaction and relations with the author, companies or other organizations connected with the work.
2.5 Supervision of publications
The Chief Editor having provided sound proofs of the fact that statements and conclusions of the article are erroneous should inform about it in order to make quick notification of introducing changes, article withdrawal, expressing anxiety or other relevant declarations.
2.6 Involvement and collaboration within the frames of research
The Chie Editor takes adequate retaliation steps in case of ethic claims dealing with reviewed works or published materials. Such steps in general include interaction with authors and arguments concerning the claim or request but they can also imply interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Reviewers’ responsibility
3.1 The impact on the editorial board decision
Reviewing helps the Chief Editor take decision about publication and helps authors raise the quality of work.
3.2 Diligence
The reviewer, who has not got necessary qualification for article consideration or has no time for quick fulfillment of work should inform the Chief Editor about it and ask to exclude him/her from the process of article reviewing.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any typescript received for reviewing should be regarded as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with any persons unauthorized for this by the Chief Editor.
3.4 Requirements to the work and objectivity
The reviewer must give objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and soundly.
3.5 Acknowledgement of primary sources
Reviewers should find important published works corresponding to the subject and not included in bibliography of the article. A relevant bibliographic reference shall be given in the article to any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier. The reviewer should draw attention of the Chief Editor to found similarities or coincidences between the article being considered and another published work within the frames of the reviewer’s academic competence.
3.6 Policy of disclosing information and conflicts of interests
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted for consideration works cannot be used in private research without written agreement of the author. Information and ideas that were received during reviewing and are connected with potential advantages shall be kept confidential and cannot be used for private benefit.
3.6.2 Reviewers cannot participate in article consideration in case there are conflicts of interests due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relations with any authors, companies or other organizations connected with the submitted work.
4. Authors’ responsibility
4.1 Requirements to typescripts
4.1.1 Information underlying the article shall be trustworthy. The work shall contain sufficient number of details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2 Reports and academic articles should also be accurate and objective, the author’s view should be clearly shown.
4.2 Access to the information and its storage
Authors can be asked to provide unprocessed data dealing with the typescript to be reviewed by reviewers. Authors should be ready to give an open access to such information (according to ALPSP-STM StatementonDataandDatabases), if it is possible and be ready to safe-keep this information during a reasonable period of time after publication.
4.3 Novelty and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors shall make sure that they submit fully original work and in case of using works or statements by other authors they shall provide relevant bibliographic references or extracts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms from claiming a stranger’s work to be the author’s one to copying or paraphrasing certain parts of somebody else’s work (without mentioning authors) and to announcing his/her rights to findings of other people’s research. Plagiarism in any form is unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4 Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publication
4.4.1 In general the author should not publish the work dealing in its principle part to one and the same research in more than 1 journal as an original edition. Submitting the same typescript to more than 1 journal is recognized as unethical behavior and acceptable.
4.4.2 The author should not submit for consideration the article, which was published earlier.
4.4.3 Publication of the same text (e.g. recommendations, translated materials) in more than 1 journal in certain cases is ethical, if fixed requirements are met. Authors and editors of concerned journals are to agree to the additional publication that must provide the same data and interpretations as in the initial work.
Bibliography of the initial work must be given in the additional publication.
4.5 Acknowledgment of primary sources
It is necessary to acknowledge the contribution of other people. Authors should refer to publications, which are important for their work. Information obtained in a private way, for example, during talks, correspondence or in discussion with the third parties cannot be used or produced without a written permit of the initial source. Information got from confidential sources, such typescript assessment or grant allocation cannot be used without a written permit of work authors, who are connected with confidential sources.
4.6 Publication authorship
4.6.1 Only persons who contributed seriously to shaping the idea of the work, development, fulfillment or interpretation of the submitted research can act as authors of the publication. Everyone, who made a serious contribution, shall be stated as a co-author. In case participants of the research made a considerable contribution to a certain aspect of the research project, they shall be stated as persons, who made a serious contribution to this research.
4.6.2 The author should be sure that all participants, who made a considerable contribution to the research, are represented as co-authors, that all co-authors saw and approved of the final version of the work and agreed to its submitting for publication.
4.7 Policy of information disclosing and conflicts of interests
4.7.1 All authors shall reveal in their typescripts finance or other conflicts of interests that can be perceived as factors having affected the results or conclusions given in the work.
4.7.2 Example of potential conflicts of interests that must be revealed are as follows: hired labour, consulting, share capital, getting author’s emoluments, writing expert reports, patent application or patent registration, grants and other finance provision. Potential conflicts of interests should be revealed as early as possible.
4.8 Serious mistakes in published works
In case of finding serious mistakes or inaccuracy in the publication the author shall inform the Chief Editor of the journal ‘Federalism’ about it and collaborate with the Chief Editor in order to withdraw the publication as quickly as possible or to correct the mistakes. If the Chief Editor gets the information about mistakes in the publication from the third party, the author shall withdraw the work or correct the mistakes within the short period of time.
Founder
- Federal State Budget Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education 'Plekhanov Russian University of Economics' (PRUE)
Author fees
Publication in the journal is free of charge for authors.
The editorial office does not charge authors for preparation, placement and printing of materials.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
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.
Plagiarism detection
“Federalism" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in “Federalism", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Federalism" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
