Universities for Tourism and Service Association Bulletin Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса - Эдиторум

All articles submitted to the editorial office shall undergo an independent bilateral anonymous review
1. The manuscript of a scientific article submitted to the Editorial Office of theUniversities for Tourism and Service Association Bulletin journal shall be reviewed by the Editor of Science, being the Member of the Science Editorial Office, to verify compliance of the article with the journal's specialization and style requirements. It shall also undergo screening in the Antiplagiat program for the signs of plagiarism. The amount of borrowed material should not exceed 10% of the content of the article if the article is presented for review by the holders of Candidate of Science and PhD degrees, 20% - for postgraduate students and Doctoral Candidates and 50% - for students. Shall the volume of borrowed materials exceed the established standards, the article is not to be reviewed and is to be returned to the author (authors). If the ratio falls within the established standards, the article shall be registered in the logbook along with the date of its submission.
1. The Editor of Science shall forward the article to one or, if necessary, to two reviewers.
2. The members of the editorial Board of the journal Universities for Tourism and Service Association Bulletin and highly qualified scientists of the University can be invited to peer-review manuscripts as well as experts from other organizations and universities with deep professional knowledge and experience in particular scientific area. They are mostly candidates of sciences, docents, doctors of sciences, professors with publications on the subject of the reviewed article which are not older than three years.
3. Remuneration of reviewers, except for the Members of the Editorial Board, shall be settled in compliance with the regulations in effect.
4. Reviewers shall be made aware that the manuscripts sent to them are private property constituting confidential information with restrictions for disclosure imposed on them. Reviewers are prohibited from making any copies of the articles for their personal use. Common rules of confidentiality shall be observed while reviewing the articles. Confidentiality requirement may be breached only in case when the reviewer states that the materials used in the article are unreliable or false.
5. The authors recieve copies of reviews or reasoned rejections. The originals are stored at the editorial office within five years from the date of publication and can be requested by expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission and Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation.
6. Shall the review call for corrections in the article, the article is returned to the author for a rework. In this case the date of submission shall be considered the date when the revised article was resubmitted.
7. An article returned to the author for a rework shall be corrected and resubmitted within a month. It shall be accompanied by a letter from the author(s), providing comments to all the remarks and explanations of any amendments made to the article.
8. If the article was subjected to considerable changes by the author, following the advice of the reviewer, it shall be resubmitted to the same reviewer who had made critical remarks.
9. The Editorial Office shall preserve the right to reject resubmitted articles if the author was unable or reluctant to address the Editorial Board's comments.
10. Shall there be two negative reviews of the article submitted by two different reviewers, or shall there be one negative review of its updated version, the article is rejected without consideration by other Members of the Editorial Board.
11. Shall the author be dissatisfied with the opinion of the reviewer, he has the right to submit a reasoned appeal to the journal's Editorial Office. The article might be forwarded for a re-review or approval to the Editorial Board.
12. A decision on the feasibility of publication of the article upon completion of its review shall be elaborated by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board.
13 The Editor of Science shall inform the author on the decision made.

Requirements for a Scientific Article Review
The objective of a review is to assure that only the best authors' manuscripts are released for publication and to provide specific recommendations aiming at the manuscripts improvement. A review shall represent an unbiased assessment of a scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of the article's scientific and methodological merits and drawbacks.
Requirements for the Content of a Scientific Article Review
The reviewer shall:
1. Verify that the content of the article corresponds to the the journal's specialization.
2. Assess the relevance of the article's content and confirm that the science and technology references used in are in line with the latest developments in the field.
3. Assess significance of the research results (both scientific and practical).
4. State how well the author addressed the style and formatting requirements. i.e the length of the article, presence of an abstract and list of references, use of key words and references in the text.
5. Conduct qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of the material contained in the article, including:
- factual materials;
- visual aids.
6. Assess completeness and accuracy of the provided data.
7. Assess correctness and precision of the used (or cited) definitions and wordings.
8. Assess literary style of the presented material.
9. Provide justified conclusions on the article as a whole, remarks and, if necessary, recommendations for its improvement.
The body of the issues referred to hereinabove is of a general nature. The criteria for assessment of each particular article shall be selected on individual basis.
The conclusion section of a review shall contain a distinctive recommendation on whether the article can be published "as is", or whether it requires a reworking (in the latter case constructive remarks shall be provided) or whether it is impractical to publish it in the journal).

Ethics of publication

Scientific Journal "Bulletin of the Association of Universities for Tourism and Service"

THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

Besides depending on compliance with laws and regulations, the future of science in general and the sphere of scientific publications in particular is also in direct correlation with the principles of ethics, governing relationships between the participants of the scientific and publishing community. The combination of two lays a fertile ground for an increased number of high-quality scientific publications and development of successful cooperation among the authors, publishers and readers. The communal experience of ethical behaviour has been expressed in a single document: The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") developed by the Scientific Publications Ethics Committee.
The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publicationscombines and interprets the general principles and rules that should govern the relations between the parties - authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors, and readers - cooperating in the process of publication of a scientific work:.
Key terms:
Ethics of scientific publicationsis a system of professional conduct standards governing relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of development, distribution and utilisation of scientific publications.
Editoris a representative of a scientific journal or a publishing house, who prepares materials for publication and keeps in contact with authors and readers of scientific publications.
Authoris a person or a group of persons (group of authors) involved in creation of a publication containing the results of some scientific research.
Revieweris an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or a publishing house and conducting scientific expertise of author's materials in order to determine feasibility of their publication.
Publisheris a legal or natural person mediating public release of a scientific publication.
Readeris any person, who familiarised him/herself with the published materials.
Plagiarismis an intentional appropriation of somebody else's work of science or art, as well as author's original ideas or inventions. Plagiarism, being a violation of the copyright and patent law, may entail legal liability.
Principles of Professional Ethics in Editor's and Publisher's Work
While carrying out his/her activities, it is the editor's responsibility to make authors' works available to the public, which necessitates adherence to the following basic principles:
-The decision of the editor of a scientific journal to publish some materials should depend on the reliability of the presented data and significance of the work in question.
- The editor should evaluate only the manuscripts' intellectual content and should not relate to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, nationality, social status or political affiliation in conducting such an evaluation.
- The part of data from the manuscripts submitted for consideration, which was not published, must not be used for personal purposes or passed on to third parties without the written consent of the author. Any information or ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and should not be used for the purpose of personal gain.
- The editor should restrict publication of materials, if there is a substantial reason to believe that they were plagiarised.
- The editor in cooperation with the publisher should ensure that all complaints regarding the manuscripts considered or materials published have been addressed, and in case of a dispute they should take all necessary measures to redress for the violation of rights.
Ethical Principles in Reviewer's Work
The reviewer performs scientific expertise of authors' materials, which implies that his/her action must be impartial in nature and involve the following principles:
- Any manuscript received for reviewing should be treated as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties, lacking relevant authorisation of the editorial office.
- The reviewer is obliged to give an unbiased and reasoned assessment of the presented study results. Personal criticism towards any author is unacceptable.
- Unpublished data from the manuscripts submitted for consideration must not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
- The reviewer, who believes he/she is not qualified to assess the manuscript or cannot be unbiased, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with the author or organisation, should inform the editor about the situation and request to be excluded from participation in the review of the manuscript.

Principles That Should Guide the Author of Scientific Publications
The author (or group of authors) realises that he/she bears the primary responsibility for the novelty of the scientific research and validity of its results, which involves adhering to the following principles:
- The article authors should provide valid results of the conducted research. It is unacceptable to provide intentionally false or fraudulent statements.
- The authors should ensure that the research results outlined in the submitted manuscript are original in their entirety. Any borrowed fragments or statements must be presented with the obligatory indication of their authors and sources. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including unremarked quotes, paraphrasing or any appropriation of rights to the results of other people's research are unethical and unacceptable.
- It is necessary to recognise the contribution of all persons who in any way influenced the research progress, and the article must be submitted with the references to the works that played an important role in the research.
- The authors should not submit manuscripts that have been already forwarded to another journal and are under consideration at the moment, as well as any articles that have been published in another journal.
- The list of co-authors of an article should include all persons who have made significant contributions to the research. It is unacceptable to put the names of persons, who did not participate in the research, on the list of co-authors.
- If the author finds any significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its review or after its publication, he/she must notify the editor about that as soon as possible.

Publication process

The section is under constraction.

EDUCATION METHOD ISSUES

Mission

Confirmation

Регистрация