Publishing Ethics

The Editorial Board of the journal "Artium Magister" adheres to the principles of publication ethics adopted by the international community and reflected, in particular, in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, and also follows the principles of publication ethics adopted by the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (Russia) (Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications").

To avoid unfair publishing practices (plagiarism, false information, etc.), to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public acceptance of the obtained scientific results, each member of the Editorial Board (hereinafter editor), author, reviewer, publisher, and institutions involved in the publishing process are required to comply with ethical standards, rules and regulations and to take all reasonable steps to prevent violations.


 Responsibilities of the editor 

 The editor in his activity should:

 - constantly improve the journal;

 - follow the principle of freedom of opinion;

 - strive to meet the needs of readers and authors of the journal;

 - exclude the influence of business or political interests on the publication of materials;

 - make decisions based on the principle of fairness and impartiality, ensure transparency of editorial activities at all its stages;

 - not disclose information about the submitted materials to anyone other than the relevant authors, reviewers, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher;

 - evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political views of the authors;

- make a decision on the publication of materials, guided by the following main criteria: correspondence of the manuscript to the subject of the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted article; clarity of presentation; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. The quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the decision on publication;

 - take all reasonable measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information. If content, grammatical, stylistic and other errors are detected, the editorial board take all measures to eliminate them;

 - take into account the reviews when making a final decision on the publication of the article. The editorial board is fully responsible for the decision on publication;

 - justify the decision in case of acceptance or rejection of the article;

 - provide the author of the reviewed material with an opportunity to justify the research view;

 - change in the editorial board does not cancel the previous decisions already made;

 - encourage discussion and provide an opportunity to present the opposing point of view;

 - do not use unpublished materials in own research.

Responsibilities of the author

  When submitting materials to the journal "Artium Magister", the authors oblige to:

 - submit only original works;

 - in the presence of text or graphics from earlier publications of the author or from the work of another researcher, refer to the relevant publications or submit written permission to use these materials. Such borrowing without reference will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism;

 - provide only authentic facts in the manuscript; provide sufficient information for verification and repetition of experiments by other researchers; do not use information obtained privately, without open written permission; do not allow fabrication and falsification of data;

 - avoid duplication of publications (in the cover letter, the author should indicate that the work is published for the first time). If individual elements of the manuscript were earlier published, the author must refer to an earlier work and indicate the differences between the new work and the earlier one. Submitting a manuscript to more than one journal at a time is unethical;

 - comply with ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on third-party research;

 - adhere to the principles of bioethics in the study of animal objects;

 - immediately notify the editorial board or the publisher of a significant error in the published work;

 - provide the editorial board or publisher with proof of the correctness of the original article or correct significant errors if the editorial board or publisher became aware of them from third parties;

 - specify all authors of the material.

 The author has the right to appeal the decision of the editorial board in accordance with the established procedure (specified in the appendix to the section "Review System").

Responsibilities of the reviewer

  The reviewer participating in the expert evaluation of materials submitted for the journal "Artium Magister" obliges to:

 - make objective and impartial decisions;

 - maintain confidentiality. It is not allowed to discuss the work with other persons, except for those authorized by the editor-in-chief to work with the author's manuscript;

 - do not use the information obtained during the review for personal gain;

 - inform the editor-in-chief and abandon the process of reviewing the manuscript, if, in the opinion of the reviewer, his qualifications are not sufficient to review the material submitted, or if there may be a violation of the terms;

 - make decisions based on specific facts and provide evidence;

 - pay editor's attention to substantial similarity between the manuscripts evaluated, as well as the lack of references to principles, conclusions, or arguments previously published in other works or other authors.

 - assist the author in improving the quality of the article;

 - do not use the materials of an unpublished manuscript in their own research.

Guidelines for Studies Involving Human Participants

The journal has a compliance policy with international, national and/or institutional standards regarding studies involving human participants and the need for authors to obtain informed consent.

If the work includes empirical data that has been received with the involvement of certain people, organizations, and communities, the author is responsible for ensuring that the submitted publication does not contain information that could harm the interests of the people who provided the necessary information in the form of documents or interviews.

Authors must avoid providing identifying information unless it is strictly necessary for the research. For article that include identifying information or potentially identifying information about participants, authors must confirm that the individual has provided written consent for the use of that information (or explain why consent was not obtained).

In cases where informed consent was obtained, authors should indicate in the Methods section whether participants (or a legally authorized representative) provided written or verbal consent. Authors who include photographs of participants must also state in the Methods section whether participants (or a legally authorized representative) reviewed and approved the images for publication.

If identifying information is discovered after publication, the article will be temporarily withdrawn while any content compromising the privacy of participants will be removed.

Formal consent is not required for retrospective studies of this type.


The potential conflict of interest ought to be avoided in the process of reviewing and publishing the submitted manuscript. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial, scientific or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) or might appear to influence, his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). 

To prevent the conflict of interest and according to the ethical rules of the journal each party involved in the publishing process is required to comply with the following guidance.

The editor should: 

- appoint another expert referee in case if there is a conflict of interest between the initially appointed reviewer and the manuscript author;

- ask all the parties for information about the potential competing interest that may arise in the publishing process;

- make a decision on publishing the information from the author’s letter concerning the conflict of scientific or/and financial interest in case the information is not confidential and can influence the estimation of the published paper by the reader’s or scientific community;

- ensure the publication of a correction if the relevant information about the conflict of interest arises after the publication of the article.

The author should:

- mention all known and potential sources of the conflict of interest in his/her covering letter;

- disclose the employment, institutional affiliations and the source of research funding;

- confirm the absence of the conflict of interest in the cover letter.

The reviewer should:

- inform the editor-in-chief about the presence of the conflict of interest (double bindings, competing interests) and recuse himself / herself from reviewing the manuscript.


IIn situations related to violations of publishing ethics by editors, authors, or reviewers, the editorial staff of the journal will carry out an investigation. This applies to both published and unpublished materials from the moment of their publication. The Editorial Staff will request clarification (without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties).

Complaints on publishing ethics violations may be connected with incorrect citing of information and plagiarism (using other authors’ content and/or conclusions without references to their papers), duplication of one’s own publications, inclusion of unreliable and/or false data in publications, incorrect indication of authors’ contribution to conducted research, and some other violations.

To report a violation

In case a violation is revealed, the complaint is submitted in written form via e-mail of Editorial Board or sent to postal address – Prosp. Universitetsky, 100, 400062 Volgograd, Russian Federation, to the chief editor of Artium Magister.

The complaint should include a detailed description of the suggested violation and information proving this fact.

The Executive Editor will make the record of a complaint and prepare 'incident report' with all factual questions on the matter after its close consideration.

For the examination of the article and related materials, the Chief Editor forms an expert Commission consisting of the Chairman (the Chief Editor or Deputy Chief Editor of the journal) and members of the Commission (not less than 2 members of the Editorial Board).

The editorial staff guarantees the confidentiality, fairness, and impartiality of all stages of investigation.

Claims to author (incorrect citing and plagiarism, inclusion of unreliable or false data, incorrect indication of authors’ contribution to conducted research)

The editor ensures a comprehensive investigation when incorrect citing or plagiarism is suspected. There are cases when the author inadvertently does not indicate the authorship of a small copied fragment. However, this should not occur with whole articles or substantial portions of another article, as it is considered a serious violation of publishing ethics principles. The editorial staff will definitely apply the prescribed sanctions with regard to such authors.

When a complaint is made against an author, the editor will contact the author and ask them to explain the situation. On the basis of the author's response, the editor makes a decision whether to reject the claim (if the author is responsive and has a clear and convincing position) or accept the claim (if the author waives his or her answer or his or her explanations are unconvincing). The Chief Editor informs a complaining party of the decision.

If the material containing significant errors is published, it will be corrected in the form available to the readers and index systems. Articles with detected plagiarism will be corrected or retracted.

The decision on the retraction of the article is formulated in the protocol of the meeting of the editorial staff. Having made the decision to retract the article, the editorial staff must necessarily indicate the cause of retraction (in the case of plagiarism detection with reference to the sources of borrowing) and the date of retraction. The article and article description remain on the website of the journal in the appropriate issue, but the electronic version of the text will be marked with the inscription "ОТКЛОНЕНА/RETRACTED" and the date of retraction, the same mark being applied to the article and the table of contents of the issue.

If the Editorial Staff decides to revoke the text of the article on the basis of its expertise or information received by the editor, the author or coauthors will be informed and asked for their reasoned opinion on the validity of the Chief Editor's decision. If the author or co-authors ignore the editorial request, the editorial staff will revoke the article without consulting the author. If the editorial staff receives the appeal with some grounds for article retraction, the editors inform the author of the appeal about the terms of its consideration. The maximum period for consideration may not exceed three months. An appeal shall not be considered if it does not indicate the author's last name, first name, patronymic name, or contact information, contains unreadable text, or contains offensive expressions.

The information on the retracted articles is placed in the repertory "Publishing Ethics" in the documents "List of Retracted Articles".

Duplication claim

The duplication claim is considered by the chief editor, who thoroughly investigates the contents of both publications and reveals all significant differences and supplementations. If an article does not contribute to research's topic or novelty, it is defined as a duplicate version and is subjected to appropriate corrections.

If authors use their own published article or an article that is currently being reviewed for another journal as the basis, they are obliged to give references to such research and indicate what the substantial difference between them is.

The second article may be published in another language only under the following conditions:

editor and/or publisher of the original article give their consent;

- the board receives compulsory notification about article’s republication;

- the chief editor believes the article is significant and being published in another language it will reach a new or different community of readers.


In the event that the chief editor acknowledges a violation of the publishing ethics principles, the journal must take the following corrective actions (depending on the severity of the violation):

– to reject the publication;

– to publish a notice on correcting the violation in a future issue of the journal;

– to correct the published material in the form available for the readers and indexing systems;

– to forbid the publication of materials for the period of 3 years;

– to reject further cooperation within the Editorial Board;

– to publish an editorial concerning the ethical issues raised by received complaint;

– to remove formally the article’s material (deleting text from the journal’s website) that violates confidentiality, invades a subject's privacy, or could cause serious harm.

All sanctions are imposed by the chief editor only after thorough consideration of claim and making objective and fair decision.

In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly egregious, the publisher and the chief editor reserve the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.

The author(s) shall have the right to appeal a decision on a violation. All appeals must be submitted in written form to the Editorial Board within 30 days of notification of the decision. The appeal must include a rebuttal of the decision, explaining in detail the rationale for why the decision was in error.