All the members of the editorial board, authors, reviewers and publishers must abide by the rules of scientific publication ethics and take all necessary measures to prevent violation of the rules in order to maintain the high quality of the publications, to have the authors’ results acknowledged by the global scientific community and to avoid unfair practices like plagiarism, data fabrication or data falsification.

The editorial board of the scientific journal “Fauna of the Urals and Siberia” conforms in its work to the principles of publishing ethics stated in the International Standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

International standards address the following issues:

- agreements with research authors that prevent funding foundations and sponsors from imposing a ban on the publication of discoveries that are unfavorable to their products or position;

- providing journal editors with procedures that separate their commercial and publishing activities so that sponsored articles are subject to the same rigorous quality control and peer review as all other publications;

- authors comply with disclosure restrictions on the information contained in their accepted but unreleased articles, and ensure that press releases accurately reflect the content of their work and do not include statements that go beyond research findings ;

- take editors seriously to the possibility of any breaches of personal data protection and confidentiality, and ensure that all research is conducted within the framework of national and international laws and principles of good practice.


The ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

Editor — a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house, preparing materials for publication, as well as maintaining communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of the publication of the results of a scientific research.

Reviewer — an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Publisher — a legal entity or individual who issues a scientific publication.

Reader — any person who has read the published materials.


Editorial guidelines

1. Responsibility for the content of the journal

Editors must be held accountable for all material they publish and apply procedures and policies to ensure the high quality and accuracy of their published material.

2. Editorial independence and integrity

An important part of the responsibility to make fair and objective decisions is to uphold the principles of editorial independence and integrity.

2.1. Decision independence from commercial considerations

Editors make decisions based only on the scientific qualities of articles and take full responsibility for their decisions. The established procedures should separate the commercial activities of the journal from editorial processes and decisions. Editors should take an active interest in publishers' pricing policies and strive to make the material they publish widely available. Sponsored additions must be subject to the same rigorous quality control and independent peer review as any other material in the journal.

Decisions regarding such materials should be made in the same way as for any other material in the journal. The fact of sponsorship and the role of the sponsor should be communicated to readers in a clear manner. Advertisements must comply with the journal's policy, be clearly distinguishable from other content, and must not have any connection with the scientific content of the journal.

2.2. Relationship of editors with the publisher or magazine owners

Ideally, editors should have a signed contract stating the terms of their appointment as journal publisher or owner. This contract must clearly state the principle of editorial independence. The publishers and owners of the magazine should not take any part in decisions regarding its content for commercial or political reasons. Publishers cannot fire an editor for any reason related to the content of the journal, except in cases of gross editorial negligence or if an independent investigation shows that the editor's decision to publish the material was made contrary to the scientific mission of the journal.

2.3. Log metrics and decision making

Editors do not attempt to improperly influence the ranking of their journal by artificially increasing any of the journal's scores. For example, the requirement to add links to articles published in a journal is inappropriate — such links should appear only for purely scientific reasons. In general, editors should ensure that peer-reviewed material is strictly scientific, and that authors are not pressured to cite certain publications for non-scientific reasons.

3. Editorial confidentiality

3.1. Authors material

If a journal uses a system whereby independent reviewers are selected by editors, the editors will maintain the confidentiality of the authors' material and advise the reviewers to maintain such confidentiality. In general, editors do not share received articles with editors of other journals, unless they have obtained consent from the authors or suspected misconduct.

Editors are generally not required to provide material to lawyers for litigation. Editors do not disclose the status of the material in the journal to anyone, except for the authors. Systems for submission of materials for publication on the Internet should be operated in such a way that the possibility of unauthorized access is excluded.

When investigating misconduct, it may be necessary to disclose material to third parties (for example, an institution's supervisory board or other editors).

3.2. Reviewers

Editors are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the personal data of reviewers unless the peer review system is open. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, they should be allowed to do so.

In the event of suspected misconduct by a reviewer, it may be necessary to disclose the reviewer's name to a third party.

General editorial policies

4. Promoting maximum transparency, completeness and honesty of publications

To improve scientific knowledge, it is important to understand why this or that scientific work was performed, how and by whom it was planned and carried out, and also what it adds to the already existing knowledge. To achieve this understanding, maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting of research papers are essential.

4.1. Authorship and responsibility

The journal has a clearly formulated authorship policy in line with international standards. Editors provide authors with guidelines containing requirements for them, and if different approaches to attribution are adopted in the field, declare which one they adhere to.

In multidisciplinary or collaborative research, it should be clear to readers who did what and who is responsible for the implementation and credibility of a particular aspect of the research. Each part of the work must have at least one author who is responsible for its accuracy. All authors are expected to contribute significantly to the material and are familiar with all of its content; ideally this should be stated in the attribution statement submitted to the journal.

When changes are made to the list of authors for valid reasons that are not objectionable to any of the authors, editors should require that all authors (including those whose names are excluded from the list of authors) express their consent in writing. Authorship disputes for both published and unpublished works (that is, disagreements about who should or should not be an author, arising before or after publication) cannot be resolved by editors and are dealt with in research institutions or other relevant independent bodies. In such cases, editors act in accordance with the results of conflict resolution, for example, by correcting authorship in published works.

Journals must have a publicly stated policy on how articles written by their editors or members of the editorial board on editors' conflicts of interest are handled.

4.2. Conflicts of interest and the role of the funding source

Editors should have a policy requiring all authors to declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and to include in the article at least those that might affect the reader's perception of the content.

The source of funding for the study must be declared and published; the role of the funding source in the formation of the concept of work, its implementation, data analysis and preparation of the publication is also indicated and published. Editors should clearly inform authors if, due to potential conflicts of interest, their work cannot be published in certain sections of the journal (for example, in articles or reviews written on request).

4.3. Complete and fair provision of data and compliance with data provision rules

One of the most important responsibilities of editors is to maintain a high standard in scientific literature. Although the standards vary from journal to journal, editors strive in their work to ensure that all published work makes new and significant contributions to their field.

Editors discourage the emergence of so-called salami publications (that is, publications about individual small fragments of research), avoid duplicate or redundant publications, except when it is indicated and acceptable to all (for example, publications in different languages ​​with cross-references), and encourage authors present their work in the context of previous work (that is, explain why this work was needed / done, what contribution this work makes, or why it was necessary to duplicate previous work).

Journals use policies that encourage complete and honest reporting, for example by requiring authors to submit protocols or research plans in areas where it is accepted, and, where possible, provide evidence that certain guidelines were followed in writing the article. These guidelines were designed to improve the quality of scientific articles, but adherence to them also helps editors, reviewers and readers better judge the actual conduct of research.

Digital image files, numbers, and tables must conform to industry standards. Images should not be inappropriately altered from the original version or present misleading results.

Editors can also check for image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication using appropriate software. If plagiarism or fraudulent manipulation of the image is detected, the problem should be considered together with the authors of the work and with the relevant institutions.

5. Responding to criticism and concerns

Reaction to published research from other researchers is an important part of scientific debate in most areas and should generally be encouraged. In some areas, journalists can “amplify” such debate by publishing reader feedback. Criticism can form part of a general scientific debate, but it can also draw attention to a lack of honesty in the research or publication.

5.1. Ensuring the accuracy of published data — amendments

When readers, authors, or editors discover undeniable errors in a published work that do not invalidate the work, corrections (or typos must be corrected) as soon as possible. The online version of the material can be corrected with an indication of the date of the correction and a link to the list of typos. If an error makes the work or a significant part of it invalid, the article must be withdrawn with an indication of the reason (for example, a good faith error).

5.2. Ensuring the accuracy of published data — suspicion of misconduct during research or publication

In the event that a question is raised by readers, reviewers or others regarding the conduct, accuracy or publication of a scientific work, the editors first contact the authors (ideally, all authors) and give them the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

If their answer is unsatisfactory, the editors refer the case to the research institution. Upon completion of an investigation, editors should take appropriate action, accompanied by a commentary explaining the findings of the investigation. Editors also need to respond to data received from national research integrity organizations that indicate misconduct in relation to material published in their journal. Editors may choose to withdraw material on their own if they are convinced that misconduct has occurred, even if an agency or national authority's investigation does not recommend it.

Editors should respond to all statements or suspicions of misconduct about research or publication that are made by readers, reviewers, or other editors.

Editors are often the first to receive information about such problems and must act even if the material has not yet been accepted for publication or has not yet been refused publication.

In addition to a specific responsibility for publications in their journal, editors are collectively responsible for published scientific knowledge and must act on any potential misconduct they become aware of. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate / redundant publication can be assessed by the editors themselves. However, in most other cases, editors request an investigation by the institution or other relevant authorities (after receiving clarification from the authors, in the event that such clarification was not satisfactory).

6. Ensuring an honest and proper peer review process

One of the most important responsibilities of editors is to organize and use peer review in an honest and prudent manner. Editors describe accepted peer review procedures in the author briefing, indicating which parts of the journal are peer reviewed.

6.1. Decision to undertake peer review

Editors may reject material without independent review if it is judged to be of low quality or unsuitable for the readers of the journal.

This decision is made with fairness and impartiality. The criteria for making such a decision should be clearly defined. The decision not to submit material for peer review can only be based on the scientific content of the material and cannot depend on the identity of the authors or their place of work.

6.2. Interaction with independent reviewers

Editors use the services of independent reviewers for the material being considered for publication by selecting individuals with sufficient experience and no conflicts of interest. Editors ensure that reviews are received on time.

Independent reviewers are advised of the requirements for them, as well as information on any changes in editorial policies. In particular, independent reviewers are required to evaluate the study and issues of publication ethics (i.e., whether they believe the study was conducted ethically, whether they have suspicions of plagiarism, forgery, falsification, or excessive publication).

Editors should formally ask independent reviewers about conflicts of interest on their part and require independent reviewers to promptly inform them of any such conflict of interest so that they can decide whether objective review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may result in the disqualification of the independent reviewer.

Editors should require independent reviewers to maintain the confidentiality of their submissions and should require independent reviewers to notify them when they are peer reviewing or mentoring a young peer. Ideally, editors should have a mechanism to control the quality and timeliness of independent peer review, as well as a mechanism to provide feedback to peer reviewers.

6.3. Misconduct of the reviewer

Editors should take peer reviewer misconduct seriously and consider any claim of breach of confidentiality, non-reporting of conflicts of interest (financial and non-financial), misuse of confidential material, or delay in peer review in the interests of competitors. In the event of serious violations by the reviewer, such as plagiarism, the editor should report them to the institution in which he works.

6.4. Interaction with authors

Editors should explain to authors that the role of the independent reviewer may vary from journal to journal. Some editors view peer reviewers as consultants and may refrain from following (or even requesting) their recommendations for accepting or rejecting a publication. Correspondence of editors, as a rule, is conducted with the responsible author, who ensures the participation of co-authors at all stages.

Communicating with all authors during the submission and final acceptance phase can be helpful to ensure that all authors are up to date and have approved the publication. As a rule, editors make decisions based on all the comments of independent reviewers in general. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to remove parts of the review if, for example, it contains defamatory or offensive statements. It is important, however, that such editorial analysis does not seek to "suppress" awkward comments.

If additional reviewers are sought at a later stage in the process, there should always be a reasonable reason clearly communicated to the authors. The final editorial decision and the reasons for it are clearly communicated to the authors and reviewers. If the material is rejected, editors should consider the authors' objections in accordance with accepted procedure. At the same time, editors are not obliged to reverse their decision.

7. Making an editorial decision

Editors take an influential position in deciding whether to accept or reject publications, which places special demands on the integrity and objectivity of the process and on its compliance with the scientific vision of a particular journal.

7.1. Processing of materials by editors and the journal

All editorial processes should be described in the information materials for authors. In particular, they must indicate the requirements for authors, the types of published materials, as well as the process of processing materials by the journal. All editors should be familiar with the journal's policies, points of view and topics. The editor-in-chief is ultimately responsible for all decisions.

7.2. Editors' conflicts of interest

Editors should not make decisions about content in connection with which they have a conflict of interest, for example, if they work or have worked in the same institution and have collaborated with authors, if they own a stake in a particular company, or have a personal relationship with the authors.

Journals must have a specific process for handling such material, as well as a process for handling material submitted by editors or editorial board members, to ensure that such material is reviewed objectively and independently. This procedure is described in the information material for authors. Conflicts of interest for an editor should be made public, ideally.


1. Basic principles that reviewers should adhere to

Reviewers should:

- agree to review only those manuscripts for the evaluation of which they have sufficient knowledge and which they can review in a timely manner;

- respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or review during or after reviewing to anyone, except for those persons who are permitted by the journal;

- not to use the information obtained during the review for their own benefit, the benefit of other persons or organizations, as well as to harm others or discredit others;

- declare all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not, do not allow the content of their review to be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of its authors or commercial considerations;

- write a review objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements, as well as defamatory or derogatory comments;

- understand that, as researchers, they themselves need conscientious peer reviews, and therefore carry out peer review accordingly;

- provide journals with accurate and truthful information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience and realize that trying to impersonate another person during peer review is a serious violation of ethical norms and rules.

2. What should be the peer review process

During preparation for peer review

Reviewers should:

- promptly respond to the offer to write a review, especially if they are not going to write it;

- if they do not know the subject of research well enough to write a review, explicitly state this, and if they can evaluate only some part of the manuscript, then describe the boundaries of the area in which they have sufficient knowledge;

- agree to review the manuscript only if they are confident that they will be able to prepare the review within the proposed or jointly agreed time period, promptly notifying the journal if they need an extension;

- declare all possible conflicts of interest (related, for example, with personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious interests) and seek advice from the magazine if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not;

- follow the journal's policy in situations that, in their opinion, may interfere with objective peer review. Unless otherwise specified in the rules, they must notify the journal if they work in the same organization as one of the authors (or will soon be working in this organization, or are applying for employment in this organization);

- if they are or have been in the recent past (for example, within the last 3 years) teachers of one of the authors, their students, close collaborators or joint users of grants, or they have a close personal relationship with one of the authors;

- re-review any manuscript that they have previously reviewed for another journal, because during this time its text may have changed and the criteria for publishing articles in journals may be different;

- make sure that suggestions to alternative reviewers are made without bias, or are not the result of personal preference, or are made in order for the manuscript to receive a certain rating (positive or negative);

- not agree to review the manuscript just to read it, without the intention of preparing a review;

- refuse to prepare a review if they feel that they cannot give an impartial and fair assessment;

- refuse to prepare a review if you have participated in any work related to the preparation of the manuscript, or in the studies described in it;

- refuse to prepare a review if they are asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to the one they are reviewing for another journal or to the one proposed by them for review;

- refuse to prepare a review if they do not agree with the peer review rules adopted in the journal, which can either affect their review or devalue it for the reason that they cannot effectively fulfill the requirements of the journal.

3. During peer review

Reviewers should:

- notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they found any conflict of interest that was not noticed when they agreed to take the article for review, or any other circumstances that prevent the formation of a fair and impartial assessment of the article;

- refrain from studying the manuscript and related materials while waiting for instructions from the journal on matters that may lead to a request to terminate the peer review agreement;

- carefully read the manuscript, supporting materials (for example, instructions for the reviewer, required ethical guidelines and principles of policy, files with attachments) and the instructions of the journal, referring to the journal if any questions arise and requesting the missing information necessary to compile a quality review;

- notify the journal as soon as possible if they find that they do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, without waiting for the date of the review submission, as this will delay the review process;

- not involve anyone in the preparation of the review, including his assistants, without obtaining the consent of the journal; the names of all persons who helped the reviewers in writing reviews should be included in the text so that the fact of their participation is registered in the journal and the journal can express its gratitude to them;

- not to publicize the details of the manuscript and reviews;

- inform the journal if circumstances arise that impede the timely preparation of the review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need if the journal does not appoint another reviewer instead;

- in the case of a "double blind" review, if they guess the name of the author (s), inform the journal if such knowledge may cause a conflict of interest;

- immediately notify the journal if they discover errors in the work, are concerned about the ethics of the work, learn of a significant similarity between the manuscript and another document, or suspect that during the research or submission of the manuscript to the journal, unfair behavior has taken place; at the same time, reviewers should keep their concerns secret and not further investigate the circumstances of the case, unless the journal itself turns to them for help;

- not delay the review process by delaying the submission of your review or requesting additional unnecessary information from the journal or the author;

- make sure that the assessment contained in their review is based on the quality of the work and is not influenced (for the better or for the worse) by any personal, financial or other considerations, or by intellectual preferences;

- do not contact the authors directly without the prior permission of the journal.

4. During the preparation of the review

Reviewers should:

- remember that the editor expects from them knowledge of the subject area, common sense, as well as an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript;

- if the review (at the request of the journal) affects only certain aspects of the work, indicate this at the very beginning of the review and clarify which aspects;

- follow the instructions of the journal regarding the specific feedback that is required of them, and if there is no compelling reason not to, arrange such communication;

- give an objective and constructive review that can help authors improve their manuscript;

- not allow derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations;

- be specific in your criticism and back up your general findings, such as “this work has been done before,” with solid — evidence and appropriate references to help editors formulate the correct assessments and decisions while respecting the authors' impartiality;

- remember that this is an author's work, and do not try to rewrite it in accordance with your stylistic preferences, if it is generally of high quality and written clearly; although suggestions for improving clarity are always welcome;

- be sensitive to language issues if authors write in a language that is not their native language, and formulate their comments appropriately and with due respect;

- Clearly indicate which proposed additional research may support the findings of the peer-reviewed manuscript and may enhance or expand the work;

- not to write a review in such a way that there are grounds to assume that it was written by another person;

- do not portray other people in a negative light or biased in your review;

- not allow unfair negative comments or unfounded criticism in relation to any work of competitors mentioned in the manuscript;

- ensure that comments and recommendations addressed to the editor are in agreement with the report addressed to the authors; most of the information should be included in the report sent to the authors;

- confidential comments sent to the editor must not contain defamation and false accusations against authors, made in the belief that the authors will not see these comments;

- not to invite authors to include in the publication links to the work of the reviewer (or his colleagues) only in order to increase the citation or importance of their work; all proposals to authors should be based only on the basis of their scientific or technological value;

- determine whether the journal's policy allows them to sign their reviews, and if so, decide whether it is convenient for them to do so;

- if the editor who works with the manuscript decided to write a review on it himself, he must do it transparently, without posing as an anonymous reviewer (if the journal practices anonymous reviewing); but writing a review of a manuscript that another editor of the journal is working on can be considered like any other review.

5. After preparing the review

Experts should:

- continue to keep the details of the manuscript and its review secret;

- respond quickly if the journal has any questions related to the manuscript, and provide the necessary information;

- contact the journal if, after submitting their review, they learned some important facts that could affect their initial opinion and recommendations;

- read reviews of other reviewers, if provided by the journal, in order to improve their understanding of the topic or their conclusions in relation to the work;

- if possible, fulfill requests from journals to review changes made to the manuscript or a new version of the manuscript.


1. Reliability and solidity

1.1. Published research must be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards.

1.2. The published research must be of high quality and thoroughly performed.

1.3. Researchers should use appropriate methods for analyzing and presenting data (and seek the advice of a specialist in this field if necessary).

1.4. Authors are collectively responsible for their work and the content of the publication. Researchers should carefully check their publications at all stages to ensure that all their methods and results are presented accurately.

1.5. Authors should carefully check all calculations, data representations, documentation and evidence they generate.

2. Honesty

2.1. Researchers must present results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or unfair data manipulation. Editing published images (eg micrographs, radiographs, electrophoresis images) should not create the likelihood of misleading the reader.

2.2. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously.

2.3. Researchers should follow the applicable research reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient information to enable other researchers to repeat the experiments.

2.4. Research reports must be complete. They should not omit information about unexplained facts, conflicting data and data that do not correspond to the theories or hypotheses of the authors or sponsors of the study.

2.5. Research sponsors should not have the right to veto the publication of results that adversely represent their product or position. Researchers should not enter into agreements that allow sponsors to prohibit or control the publication of their results (except in exceptional cases, for example, if the research is declared secret at the government level).

2.6. Authors should immediately notify the editor if they find an error in any submission, accepted for publication, or already published work. Authors should collaborate with editors if necessary to revise or shorten the work.

2.7. Citations and references to other works must be accurate and accurate.

2.8. Authors should not copy from other publications links to works that they themselves have not read.

3. Weightedness

3.1. New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of other scholars should be properly reflected. The review and conclusions from existing studies should be complete, balanced and should include information, regardless of whether they support the hypotheses and interpretations of the author of the publication or not. Journals should make a clear distinction between academic articles and editorial columns and articles representing a subjective point of view.

3.2. All restrictions adopted during the research should be reflected in the publication.

4. Originality

4.1. Authors must comply with the publication requirements that the proposed work is original and has not been previously published anywhere in any language. The work cannot be sent simultaneously to several editions, unless the publishers agree to a joint publication. If the article is published jointly, this fact should be known to the readers.

4.2. Applicable copyright conventions and laws must be respected. Copyrighted material (such as tables, figures or large quotes) may only be reproduced with the permission of their respective owners.

4.3. The publication should refer to the relevant previous work of both other researchers and the author himself and do it correctly and accurately. In all possible cases, a link to the source should be provided.

4.4. Authorship of data, text, drawings and ideas that the author received from other sources must be attributed, and they should not be presented as belonging to the author of the publication. Direct citations from the work of other researchers should be highlighted with quotation marks and the corresponding link.

4.5. Authors should notify publishers if their proposed data for publication has previously been published elsewhere or if any interpretation of this data is sent to other publishers. In this case, authors should provide copies of such publications or works sent for consideration to other journals.

4.6. The various publications arising from the work on the same research project must be clearly identified as such and must contain references to the original publications. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified, referenced to the original source, and comply with applicable copyright conventions and permission-to-use rules. When in doubt, authors should seek permission from the publisher of the original source before republishing any work.

5. Transparency

5.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, equipment or materials, and other types of support (for example, assistance from data statisticians or technical writers) must be indicated.

5.2. Authors should provide information on the degree of involvement of the research sponsor (if any) in project preparation, execution, analysis, interpretation of results, and preparation of the research report.

5.3. Authors must provide information on financial and non-financial interests and relationships that could influence the interpretation of their findings, as well as information of this kind that may be material to publishers, reviewers and readers. This includes any relationship of the author with the journal, for example if publishers publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors must follow the journal and institution's requirements for disclosure of competing interests.

6. Authorship and links to sources

6.1. Research literature contains information not only about discoveries, but also about who made these discoveries. Therefore, the authorship of scientific publications should accurately reflect the individual contributions to and report on research work.

6.2. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, and those whose contributions to research or writing are less significant or purely technical are listed in the Acknowledgments section, criteria for attribution should be agreed at the beginning of the project. Ideally, criteria for authorship in a particular area of research should be agreed upon, published and consistently applied by research centers, professional and academic communities, and sponsors. While journal editors should develop and publish specific criteria for authorship in specific areas of research, they should not be expected to resolve disputes on this issue. Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies entirely with the authors themselves, acting in accordance with the rules, accepted in their institution. Academic institutions should develop and maintain fair standards for attribution and acknowledgment. Where appropriate, such institutions should resolve disputes over authorship issues while ensuring that the correct procedure is followed.

6.3. Researchers must ensure that only those individuals who meet the criteria for authorship (that is, have made significant contributions to the work) are considered authors and that researchers worthy of authorship are not excluded from the list of authors. Research centers and academic editors should implement a practice to prevent guest, gift, or anonymous authorship.

6.4. All authors must agree to be listed as authors and approve the submitted and edited version of the work. Any changes to the list of authors must be approved by all authors, including those who are deleted from the list. The Responsible Author is the contact person between the publisher and other authors. He should inform co-authors and involve them in making decisions on publication issues (for example, in the case of responding to comments from reviewers).

6.5. Authors should not mislead readers by posting thanks to people who were not actually involved in the work and did not provide support.

7. Accountability and responsibility

7.1. All authors should read and be familiar with the submitted work and ensure that the work complies with the principles set out in this manual. In most cases, authors have joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if the authors accept responsibility only for certain aspects of the work and published material, this should be indicated in the publication.

7.2. Authors should work with editors or publishers to correct their work as soon as possible if errors or omissions are found in them after publication.

7.3. Authors must adhere to the relevant conventions, requirements and regulations so that their materials, reagents, software or datasets are available to other researchers who request them.

7.4. Researchers, academic institutions, and sponsors should have clear policies to handle such requests. Authors are required to follow certain journal standards. If an expression of gratitude is offered for the submitted materials, researchers should not demand to be named among the authors as a condition for submitting materials.

7.5. Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments, as well as to published correspondence. They should try to answer the reviewers' questions and provide the necessary clarifications and additional information if required.

8. Compliance with peer review and publication agreements

8.1. Authors are required to comply with publishers' requirements that a work should not be simultaneously offered for publication in more than one edition.

8.2. Authors should inform the editor if they refuse to review their work or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving conditional consent to publish.

8.3. Authors should answer the reviewer's questions professionally and promptly.

8.4. Authors should respect a publisher's request to limit publications in the media and should not allow their discoveries to be reported in the media if their article has been accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a scientific journal. Authors and their research centers should liaise and interact with publishers to coordinate media activities (eg check press releases or press conferences) in connection with the publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the content of the work and should not include information that goes beyond the research results.

9. Responsible reflection of research findings with human participation

9.1. Appropriate approvals, licenses and registrations must be obtained prior to commencing research, and this information must be included in the research report.

9.2. At the editor's request, authors must provide evidence that the research described in the work has received the necessary approvals and was conducted ethically (for example, copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).

9.3. Researchers should not publish or distribute personally identifiable information collected in the course of research without their explicit consent (or the consent of their representatives). Researchers should remember that many scientific journals are currently freely available on the Internet, and therefore should be aware of the risk of harm or moral harm to an untargeted audience (for example, research participants or their families who may recognize themselves in the presentation case studies, descriptions, images, or pedigrees).