- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Data sharing policy
- » CrossMark Policy
Aim and Scope
Fields of Science: philology and history
KEY QUESTIONS:
Russia and the world in dialogue
- Russian world: language, literature, folklore, history
- History of the abroad through the eyes of russian researchers
- Russian world surrounded by other cultures: comparative studies
- Media communications and journalism: a world without borders
- Theory and methodology of language and literature research as a space for dialogue between different scientific traditions
Mission of Nauchnyi Dialog — organizing a dialogue between national research traditions in the humanitarian branches of science - historical and philological.
Tasks:
1) accumulation of knowledge about Russian culture through studies of language, literature and Russian history as the main markers of identity surrounded by other identities;
2) exchange of interpretations of a foreign cultural text: Russian literature and history as interpreted by foreign colleagues - and foreign literary and historical discourse as interpreted by Russian researchers;
3) presentation of the observations of researchers from different countries of the media development as a factor in globalization;
4) inviting researchers from different countries to present and discuss theories, approaches, methods, techniques for analyzing language, text, discourse, since due to a long period of closed development of national scientific traditions and schools, discrepancies have accumulated in the choice of research problems, interpretations of key terms, methodological preferences.
Articles on scientific specialties of such fields of science as “HISTORICAL SCIENCES” and “PHILOLOGY” (according to the nomenclature of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation) are accepted for consideration:
5.6.1. Domestic history (historical sciences)
5.6.2. General history (historical sciences)
5.6.7. History of international relations and foreign policy (historical sciences)
5.9.1. Russian literature and literature of the peoples of the Russian Federation (philological sciences)
5.9.2. Literature of the peoples of the world (philological sciences)
5.9.3. Literary theory (philological sciences)
5.9.4. Folkloristics (philological sciences)
5.9.5. Russian language. Languages of the peoples of Russia (philological sciences)
5.9.6. Languages of peoples of foreign countries (indicating a specific language or group of languages) (philological sciences)
5.9.8. Theoretical, applied and comparative linguistics (philological sciences)
5.9.9. Media communications and journalism (philological sciences)
RECOMMENDED TOPICS
The editorial board includes specialists in such topics as lexicology, ethnolinguistics, text and discourse, media, translation studies, stylistics, sociolinguistics, lexicography, theory and practice of communication, folklore, Russian literature surrounded by other national literatures, literary process, foreign literature, reception of Russian literature, history of Russia, regional history, history of international relations and foreign policy of Russia, history of Turkic states, history of European states, history of European integration, history of diplomacy, theory and methodology of literary criticism, linguistics, history.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
10 issues per year - from 2022
2012-2021 - Monthly
Open Access Policy
"Nauchnyi dialog" 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
Review Policy adopted by the chief editor: 23.06.2023
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG follows COPE recommendations when working with manuscripts, reviewers, and organizing the review process.
Type of review
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG undergo mandatory double-blind peer review. This means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's names and affiliations, and all correspondence is conducted through the editor of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG. Each manuscript is sent to one or, if necessary (e.g., detecting signs of advertising in the text, ideological engagement, interdisciplinary nature), two experts.
Review timeline
The review process in the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG takes on average from 2 to 4 months. Within this period, the editorial board includes time for the initial consideration of the manuscript, selection of reviewers, time for preparing the review, time for the author to revise the article and re-review, and involvement of additional experts.
Review Process
The decision to select a reviewer for the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG is made by the editor or responsible secretary of the issue.
Each article is sent to one expert or, in the case of interdisciplinary articles, two experts. If there is an opinion about ideological engagement or advertising nature of the manuscript, a second expert may also be involved to clarify the scientific value of the work.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG can provide the author with one of the following decisions regarding the manuscript:
Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be forwarded to the editor for further processing. The author will be notified of the publication date.
Accept for publication after addressing the reviewer's noted deficiencies. In this case, the author will be given one week to make changes to the manuscript as indicated by the reviewer. If the deficiencies are addressed or there is a justified refusal to make changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Accept for publication after addressing the reviewer's noted deficiencies and undergoing a re-review. In this case, the author will be given two months to make changes to the manuscript as indicated by the reviewer. The manuscript will be sent for re-review. Within 30 days, the author will receive a final decision on the fate of the manuscript.
Reject. In this case, the author will receive a motivated refusal to publish the manuscript. A refusal to publish does not prohibit authors from submitting manuscripts to NAUCHNUI DIALOG in the future. However, if publication is refused due to serious violations by the author, the chief editor may decide to include the author in a blacklist. In such cases, other articles by this author will not be considered.
The editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG allows for three rounds of review. This means that after the first decision to revise the article, the author has two attempts to make changes based on the reviewer's recommendations or provide a justified refusal to make changes. If after the third round of review the expert sends further comments, the journal editor will suggest that the author consider the possibility of publishing in another journal or resubmit the article with the changes made in six months.
If the author does not plan to revise the article, they must inform the journal's editorial board. Work on the manuscript will be discontinued.
If the author has a conflict of interest with a potential reviewer of the manuscript, they must inform the journal's editor. The editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG will select another reviewer if necessary.
During the review process, conflicts may arise between the author and the reviewer. In such cases, the editor of NAUCHNUI DIALOG has the right to assign a new reviewer for the manuscript and involve the chief editor in resolving disputes.
Articles by the chief editor, deputy editor, responsible secretary, and members of the editorial board can be published in NAUCHNUI DIALOG, but there should be no abuse of their official positions. Manuscripts by journal staff are sent for double-blind review only to external experts. External experts are involved in resolving conflicts and contradictory situations. In case of a conflict regarding the fate of a manuscript involving the chief editor, the final decision on the possibility of publication is made by members of the editorial board.
When publishing articles by members of the editorial board/council, chief editor, and deputy editor, information about their affiliation with the journal is indicated in the "Conflict of Interest" section.
The journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG does not exempt scientists from having their manuscripts reviewed regardless of their status.
Copies of reviews are kept in the editorial office of NAUCHNUI DIALOG for at least 5 years.
Reviewers
For the review of all submitted manuscripts, members of the editorial board and external experts with experience in the relevant subject area and publications on the topic of the reviewed manuscript in the last 5 years are involved.
If the author declares a potential conflict of interest, the individuals mentioned are excluded from the list of possible reviewers for their manuscript.
The composition of reviewers and the actions of the journal's editorial board to ensure high-quality expertise
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG regularly works to attract recognized experts in the field of philology and history to work on the journal, as well as to rotate reviewers in a timely manner.
Reviewers are invited to work with the journal based on recommendations from the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board/council, as well as authors.
The responsible editor of the journal regularly tracks publications on the journal's topic in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Russian National Corpus, and sends invitations for collaboration to authors of these publications.
The first review by new reviewers is evaluated according to the following algorithm:
- Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the research question raised in the study?
- Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
- Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research (study design, data collection and analysis)?
- Did the reviewer provide useful comments regarding the language and structure of the article, tables, and figures?
- Were the reviewer's comments constructive?
- Did the reviewer present arguments using examples from the article to support their comments?
- Did the reviewer comment on the authors' interpretation of the results?
- Overall quality of the review.
If the quality of the review does not satisfy the editors, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.
The editors of NAUCHNUI DIALOG journal have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews from all experts involved in working with the journal according to the presented algorithm.
The mechanism for attracting reviewers to work on the journal
The editors of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG consider peer review to be one of the most important procedures when working with the journal and value the experience and time of the experts involved in reviewing.
Reviewers of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG receive the right to priority publication.
Confidentiality
The editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG does not disclose personal information of reviewers or authors. Manuscripts submitted to the NAUCHNUI DIALOG journal are treated as confidential documents, and the editorial board expects reviewers to maintain confidentiality and not share or discuss manuscript texts without the editor's consent.
Reviewers may involve third parties in the review process only with the editor's approval.
Responsibility of the Reviewer
By agreeing to review manuscripts for the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG, the reviewer agrees to adhere to the journal's policies in evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, and in terms of their conduct and adherence to ethical requirements.
The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of published materials in NAUCHNUI DIALOG, just like the editor, and therefore should only review a manuscript if they have sufficient experience in the relevant field and enough time for a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the article.
The reviewer is obligated to inform the editor of any conflicts of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) if they exist. In case of any doubts, the situation should be discussed with the editor.
The reviewer must refuse to review if they:
- Are the supervisor or subordinate of the manuscript's author, as well as holders of joint grants;
- Do not plan to prepare a review and only want to familiarize themselves with the article;
- Are preparing their own article on a similar topic;
- Are reviewing an article on a similar subject.
The reviewer must inform the editor of their intention to review the article and complete the work within the deadline specified by the editor. If conducting the review is not possible for a number of reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.
The reviewer cannot use their status for personal purposes or impose references to their own work on the authors.
All materials received from the journal editor are strictly confidential. The reviewer must not disclose materials to third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the editor of NAUCHNUI DIALOG.
Reviewer Recommendations
For the convenience of the reviewer, the editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG offers the use of a quick review form - it includes questions that the editor needs answers to in order to make a decision about the article.
The editorial board asks the reviewer to pay more attention to the "Comments" section in order to help the authors improve their current and future work.
Content and structure of the review
The recommendations of NEICON were used to create this section. The editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG has obtained permission from NEICON to use their methodological recommendations in the journal's reviewing policy.
10 criteria by which the manuscript should be evaluated:
- Originality;
- Logical rigor;
- Statistical rigor;
- Clarity and conciseness of writing style;
- Theoretical significance;
- Reliable results;
- Relevance to contemporary research areas;
- Reproducibility of results;
- Literature coverage;
- Application of results.
In addition to the quick review form, the editorial board of NAUCHNUI DIALOG recommends that reviewers adhere to the following structure of the review.
Comments for the Editor:
- Conflict of interest: Describe any real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that may lead to biased conclusions.
- Confidential comments: This section is intended for comments that will not be conveyed to the authors. It includes the reviewer's final conclusion about the fate of the manuscript, assumptions, expression of doubts regarding possible ethical violations, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). Proposed decision: Usually a brief conclusion about the fate of the manuscript (accept for publication, accept for publication after minor revisions, accept for publication after major revisions, reject, reject and invite the author to resubmit the paper for reconsideration).
Comments for the Authors:
- Introduction: In this section, describe the main findings and the value of the article for readers.
- Main comments: In this section, describe the relevance to the goals and objectives of the journal, the level of reliability, and ethical behavior.
- Specific comments: The reviewer provides an evaluation of the sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.
- Recommendations to the author: The reviewer provides recommendations to the author to improve the quality of the manuscript and possibly future research.
- Final comment: A brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.
Criteria for evaluating the manuscript:
- Relevance to the subject area: It is important to determine if the manuscript is relevant to the subject area of the scientific journal and the interests of its audience. Reviewers should not waste time reviewing irrelevant manuscripts, regardless of their quality.
- Justification: Does the work adhere to the design of the study, scientific methods, structure, and content? Does it meet the necessary requirements and adhere to the principles of impartial scientific research? Are the results reproducible? Has the sample been properly selected and analyzed in sufficient detail to generalize the findings?
- Originality: Does the conducted research bring something new to the relevant subject area?
- Ethics: Does the research meet the requirements of originality and impartiality in terms of conflict of interest? Regardless of the potential significance of the manuscript, it cannot be accepted for publication if there is redundancy, plagiarism, or violation of basic ethical principles of scientific research, such as legality, benefit, and respect for individuals.
Please note that this translation may not be perfect and may require further editing.
Evaluation of manuscript elements
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG proposes using the following questions to expedite the process of preparing an expert opinion and providing the most comprehensive information about the article to the editor and author.
Title
Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract readers' attention?
Abstract
Is the content of the manuscript adequately presented in the abstract (i.e., is the abstract structured, does it provide a description of the objectives, methods, results, and significance)?
Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the manuscript sections? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?
Introduction
Is the introduction concise? Is the research objective clearly defined and the research question posed? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the research based on a literature review? If so, does this section meet the required length? Does the author provide definitions of terms used in the manuscript? If the manuscript is submitted under the "Original Research" section, does it contain a clearly formulated hypothesis?
Literature Review
How comprehensive is the literature review?
Methods:
- Can another researcher reproduce the results of the study using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear?
- Do the authors justify their choice when describing the research methods (e.g., selection of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?
- If the authors propose a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow for a reasonable test of the hypothesis?
- How is the study design presented?
- How does the data analysis contribute to achieving the research objective?
Results:
- Are the results clearly explained?
- Does the order of presenting the results match the order of describing the methods?
- Are the results justified and expected, or unexpected?
- Are there any results that lack a corresponding description in the "Methods" section?
- How accurate is the presentation of the results?
Discussion:
- Is the discussion concise? If not, how can it be shortened?
- If a hypothesis was formulated, do the authors report whether it was confirmed or refuted?
- If the hypothesis was not confirmed, do the authors report whether an answer to the research question was provided?
- Do the conclusions align with the results obtained during the study?
- If unexpected results were obtained, do the authors analyze them properly?
- What potential contribution does the study make to the field and global science?
Conclusions:
- Do the authors acknowledge the limitations of the study?
- Are there any additional limitations that should be noted?
- What is the authors' opinion on these limitations?
- What is the authors' opinion on future research directions?
References
Do the references comply with the journal format? Are there any bibliographic errors in the reference list? Are the references cited in the article text accurate? Are there any important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? Are there too many or too few references in the article? Are the cited references relevant?
Tables
If there are tables in the article, do they accurately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Are the data presented in the tables processed appropriately and facilitate rather than complicate information perception?
Figures
Are tables and figures a suitable choice for solving the problem at hand? Can the results be illustrated differently? Do the figures and graphs accurately show important results? Should changes be made to figures and graphs for more accurate and clear presentation of results? Do the captions for figures and graphs allow understanding of information without referring to the manuscript?
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Is information about funding and conflicts of interest clearly stated?
Final decision of the reviewer
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG proposes to use the following justification for the final decision of the reviewer.
Accept the article for publication
The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in its current form. The article is well-founded, ethical, significant for the scientific community, and complements previously published works. The writing style is clear and concise.
Accept after minor revisions
There are non-critical comments on the article that need to be addressed. This may include poor writing style, lack of clarity in the presentation, insufficiently developed article structure, errors in references, duplication of information in figures, tables, and the text of the article. After making the necessary changes and re-evaluation, the article may be accepted for publication.
Accept after significant revisions and re-review of the article
The article has serious deficiencies and errors that affect the reliability of the obtained results: ethical issues, flaws in the study design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficient description of the limitations of the conducted study, contradictory (or refuted by the author's own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures requiring significant revision. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for further evaluation. Such a decision often requires collecting additional data from the author.
Reject
The work does not meet the goals and objectives of the journal, has one or more irreparable shortcomings, or serious ethical problems: consent for publication was not obtained when necessary, research methods are unethical, methodology is discredited or erroneous (e.g., ignoring a process that significantly affects the results). In such a decision, the author should not submit a corrected document without a special request. The reviewer should provide detailed comments justifying their decision, as they can help the author significantly improve their work.
Reject and suggest the author resubmit the article for reconsideration
The topic or research question is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or unreliable methods, therefore, the obtained data is also unreliable. This decision is also possible in cases when the article requires multiple changes or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. Authors are encouraged to conduct research taking into account the recommended changes and submit new results for consideration.
Editing of reviews
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG expects that reviews will be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. Personal attacks, insults towards the author, and irrelevant criticism of any aspect of the research, language, and style of the manuscript, etc., are prohibited.
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG strives to transmit reviews to authors in their original form. However, in some cases, there may be a need to modify the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining comments from multiple experts on one issue or in the case of confidential comments in the review section intended for the author).
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNUI DIALOG has the right to send a review back for revision by the expert in case of a large number of errors or an unacceptable tone in the review.
Rejection rate: 35–42 %
Publishing Ethics
Authorship, Author Contributions, Acknowledgements
Author Contributions and Non-Author Contributions
Complaints and Appeals
Conflict of Interest
Authors' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
Reviewers' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
Editors' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
Data Reuse and Reproducibility
Ethical Oversight
Working with Confidential Data
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections to Published Articles
What Should Authors Do if They Discover an Error in Their Article?
Algorithm for Making Changes to an Article
Updates and Post-Publication Discussions of Articles
Supplement to a Published Article
Comment on a Published Article
Responsibility of Journal Management: Editorial Board, Editors, Publisher, Founder
Principles of Editorial Board Formation
Authorship, Author Contributions, Acknowledgements
Authorship
The journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG adheres to the following authorship criteria (developed and described in the ICMJE):
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all those who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.
Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.
Author Contributions and Non-Author Contributions
The Acknowledgements section may include mention of individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as those who provided support to the research, acted as mentors, assisted with data collection, coordinated the study, etc.
For proper determination of contributions, authors of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal may use one of the schemes recommended by COPE:
General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions
CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy
Responsibility
The responsibility for adhering to authorship and author contribution standards lies with the editors of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal.
Authors are required to provide transparent and accurate information about the authors of the article and individuals who made substantial contributions to its preparation.
In cases where a manuscript is submitted to NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board member, or Editorial Council member, the manuscript will only be reviewed by external experts.
To accurately determine the contribution to the preparation of the article, please utilize the following resources:
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf
https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-tie-breaker-scorecard.pdf
Authorship Statement
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG requires authors to provide an authorship statement along with their manuscript.
By providing this statement, authors guarantee that:
- Each author meets the authorship criteria outlined in the ethical policy of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG.
- All individuals who contributed to the research but are not authors are acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.
- The contribution of each author is described. This information will be published in the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG.
- Authors take responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.
Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editor verifies the presence of authorship information. If an authorship statement is not provided, the manuscript will not be considered for review.
Disputes
In case of disputes regarding authorship, work on the manuscript is halted regardless of the stage it is in (review, editing, or preparation for publication).
All co-authors are informed via email about the dispute over authorship.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG has the right to specify a precise deadline within which authors can provide clarification on the issues raised. After this deadline, the article will be retracted with an appropriate explanation. If the article has been published as Online First, an explanation regarding its retraction will be made openly available.
In case a dispute arises regarding a published article, the editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG will publish a correction, refutation, or retract the article, providing reasons for the changes made to the published document.
If it becomes necessary to add or remove a co-author before or after publication, the editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG follows the rules set by COPE:
https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf
https://publicationethics.org/node/34601
To prevent authorship manipulation, the editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG utilizes COPE flowcharts and pays attention to the following when working with an article:
- Indication that the research was funded by an organization whose authors are absent from the general list. This requires a more thorough examination of the contribution of all authors and, if necessary, requesting clarifications from the responsible author.
- Presence of scientists from a different scientific field in the list of authors. This may indicate guest authorship.
- Mentioning an individual in the "Acknowledgements" section without specifying their specific contribution.
- Very long or very short author lists, atypical for the given scientific field or type of article.
- Incomplete description of author contributions: for example, lack of information about who prepared the initial manuscript draft or processed the data.
- Plagiarism check reveals borrowings from a dissertation, whose author is not listed among the authors.
- Other groups of authors have published articles on similar topics.
- The list of authors is suddenly changed during the publication stage without prior discussion with the journal's editorial board.
- An author has a large number of publications, although their position does not entail such publication activity (department head, institute director).
- The corresponding author is unable to respond to reviewer comments.
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG expects affiliated organizations to be willing to participate in investigations of authorship disputes.
Complaints and Appeals
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG takes complaints about the behavior of editors and reviewers seriously. These complaints may include issues such as breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized use of confidential information obtained during the review process, doubts expressed about specific articles, or complaints about violations of editorial processes.
All complaints can be sent to the email address editor@nauka-dialog.ru and will be reviewed in a timely manner. The complaint review process does not exceed 7 days. The complainant will receive information about the decision made, as well as the measures that will be taken and the timeline for their implementation.
When reviewing complaints, the editorial board relies on the COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:
- Handling of post-publication critiques
- Post-publication discussions and amendments
- Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
- Image manipulation in a published article
- Fabricated data in a published article
Conflict of Interest
The section was prepared according to the recommendations of WAME
Conflict of interest refers to conditions in which individuals have conflicting or competing interests that may influence editorial decisions and the interpretation of data in an article. Conflict of interests can be potential, perceived, or actual. Objectivity can be influenced by personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors.
Conflict of interests can cover the following areas:
- Financial: This conflict arises when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits such as patents or stocks), gifts, or services that may influence work related to a specific publication. Examples include research funding, consultation fees, and public speaking fees.
- Personal relationships: This conflict arises in cases of personal relationships with family, friends, competitors, or former colleagues.
- Political and religious beliefs: Commitment to a particular religion or political party can influence the evaluation of an article that addresses these issues.
- Institutional affiliation: This conflict arises when a participant in the publication process is directly associated with an organization that has an interest in the publication.
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG may ask authors additional questions or request additional information as needed.
Conflict of interest can pertain to authors, reviewers, and editors. The following policy provisions are based on ICMJE recommendations.
Authors' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format, they are required to disclose all relationships and activities that may be perceived as influencing their work.
Authors must inform the editor of any actual or potential conflicts of interest by including information about the conflict of interest in the appropriate section of the article.
If there is no conflict of interest, authors should also state this. Example wording: 'The author declares no conflict of interest.'
Reviewers' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should inform editors of any conflict of interest that may affect their opinion of a manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing if there is a basis for bias. Reviewers should not use information about the reviewed work for their own interests before it is published.
Editors' Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflict of Interest
Editors making final decisions regarding manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions in cases of conflict of interest or relationships that may create potential conflicts related to the articles under consideration. Other editorial staff involved in making editorial decisions should inform editors of their current interests (as they may influence editorial decisions) and recuse themselves from decision-making in cases of conflict of interest. Editorial staff should not use information obtained while working with manuscripts for personal purposes. Editors should regularly disclose potential conflicts of interest associated with their own activities and the activities of journal staff. Invited editors should follow the same procedures.
Articles authored by the editor-in-chief of the journal, deputy editor-in-chief of the journal, members of the editorial board, and editorial council of NAUCHNYI DIALOG should clearly indicate their affiliation with NAUCHNYI DIALOG.
If an undisclosed conflict of interest is detected in an unpublished article, the editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal will follow the COPE guidelines.
If an undisclosed conflict of interest is detected in a published article, the editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal will adhere to the COPE guidelines.
Data Reuse and Reproducibility
The present policy section has been developed based on the recommendations of COPE ‘Data and reproducibility’.
Authors are encouraged, but not required, to provide access to the research data that supports the content of their publications. The authors' consent to provide access to the research data does not affect the decision to publish.
Definition of Research Data
Research data includes any factual materials recorded in any medium that were used in the process of obtaining research results, in digital or non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or unprocessed data. This policy applies to research data that may be necessary to confirm the validity of the research results presented in articles published in the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG. Research data includes information obtained directly by the authors ('primary data') as well as data from other sources analyzed by the authors during the research ('secondary data').
Definition of Exceptions
This policy does not apply to research data that is not required to confirm the validity of the results presented in the published articles.
Information about data that is not subject to disclosure may be shared in the following ways: placed in restricted access research data repositories; pre-anonymized. An author may also make only the metadata of research data and/or a description of how to access them available to other researchers upon request.
Data Storage
The preferred method of data sharing is through data repositories. If you need assistance in selecting a repository to deposit your data, please refer to the list of repositories on the website: https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.
Data Citation
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG welcomes the provision of access to research data under free Creative Commons licenses. The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG does not insist on the mandatory use of free licenses when data is deposited in third-party repositories. The publisher of NAUCHNYI DIALOG does not claim ownership rights to the research data provided by the author along with the article.
Letters regarding compliance with this policy can be addressed to the editor-in-chief of NAUCHNYI DIALOG.
Ethical Oversight
Journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG shares the opinion of COPE that publication ethics includes not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research, but also ethical behavior towards research subjects. This category includes vulnerable populations, individuals (in the case of relevant research), confidential data, and business/marketing practices.
Vulnerable Populations
Vulnerable populations include (but are not limited to) those who are unable to protect their own interests: pregnant women, newborns, children, fetuses in the womb, prisoners, disabled individuals, mentally challenged individuals, economically disadvantaged individuals, hospitalized patients in critical condition, etc.
Research involving vulnerable populations should only be conducted if these groups will benefit from the research.
One concern is that not all research participants may fully understand the conditions of the study due to objective reasons. If informed consent cannot be obtained from the immediate participant, it should be obtained from their legal representative. Special attention should be paid to research involving children.
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG supports COPE's statement on ‘The protection of vulnerable groups and individuals’.
Authors of articles must obtain informed consent for publication and inform the editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG accordingly.
Working with Confidential Data
The right to privacy of individuals or organizations involved in the research is of paramount importance and should not be violated without their informed consent. Authors must take all necessary precautions to protect information about research participants. If necessary, authors should take measures to minimize any potential physical and psychological harm to research participants.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections to Published Articles
In some cases, there is a need to make changes to an already published article. The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG supports the practice of making changes to published materials and, if necessary, follows the COPE recommendations.
Any necessary changes are accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can obtain information about all necessary changes. The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG uses Expressions of Concern, Corrections, or Retractions. The aim of such practice is to ensure the integrity of scientific materials.
All Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction notices are openly accessible."
What Should Authors Do if They Discover an Error in Their Article?
Authors may discover technical or semantic errors in their published article. In such cases, authors should notify the editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal as soon as possible, especially if the errors could impact the interpretation of results or raise doubts about the accuracy of information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching a consensus within the authorship group regarding further interaction with the editorial board.
If you believe that changes need to be made to a published article, please contact us via email editor@nauka-dialog.ru.
Algorithm for Making Changes to an Article
Correction
Corrections are made to an article if it is necessary to correct an error or add missing information that does not affect the integrity and scientific significance of the article. Corrections can be made, for example, in a figure caption, information about funding sources can be added, or information about conflicts of interest can be clarified.
In case of such changes, a separate correction notice is published. The general procedure is as follows:
- The correction is made to the original version of the article.
- The Crossmark record is updated.
- The "Abstract" field of the original version of the article is modified to include a description of the change made.
- A correction notice is published, which includes information about the original version of the article, the names of the authors, a description of the nature of the correction, and links to it.
Correction notices for spelling errors, typos, and other minor changes are not published separately. The website will indicate that corrections have been made (without providing details).
Article Retraction
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal decides to retract an article in the following cases:
- When there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable for various reasons: serious errors in calculations, fabricated data, manipulation of images.
- When plagiarism is detected in the article.
- When the results have already been published in other journals and the author has not justified the need for re-publication or informed the editor about it.
- When the article contains materials and data for which permission to use has not been obtained.
- When copyright is violated or there is another serious legal problem (e.g., breach of confidentiality).
- When research ethics are violated.
- When the peer review process has been compromised.
- When the author has not disclosed a conflict of interest that, in the editor's opinion, could have influenced the reviewer's or editor's decision to publish the article.
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal follows the following procedure for article retraction:
- Conduct an investigation and ensure that retraction is necessary.
- Prepare a retraction notice: include the label "Article Retraction" and the title of the article, describe the reason for the retraction, indicate who initiated it, and provide a link to the retracted article.
- Publish the retraction notice.
- Replace the original version of the retracted article, marking in the PDF file that the article has been retracted.
- Notify databases about the retraction.
- Provide information about the retracted article to the Retracted Articles Database.
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal follows COPE guidelines for dealing with retracted articles.
Expression of Concern
The editorial board of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal expresses concern in the following cases:
- Serious concerns have been raised about a published article, but investigation has not been able to prove anything or for some reason investigation will not be conducted or cannot be completed in a timely manner. In such cases, it is necessary to inform readers as soon as possible.
After completing the investigation, changes may be made to the article or it may be retracted.
Article Removal
Articles from NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal are only removed in extreme cases where it is not possible to follow the protocol for making changes, retracting an article, or expressing concern.
An article may be removed in the following cases:
- If the dissemination of the article could pose a serious risk.
- If the article contains content that violates the right to privacy of research participants.
- If the article violates rights.
- If the article is subject to removal by court order.
In case of article removal, all materials are removed from the journal's website, requests are sent to databases to remove the full text and post a notice of article removal.
This information is based on COPE guidelines.
Updates and Post-Publication Discussions of Articles
Supplement to a Published Article
An author may need to supplement an article after its publication. In such cases, the editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG may publish an addendum to the article. Addenda are reviewed by the journal's editors and may be sent for peer review.
When an addendum is published, the file containing the original version of the article is updated, and a notice of the addendum is additionally included in the current issue of the journal. The notice includes information about the article, its authors, the nature of the changes made, and a link to the article.
Comment on a Published Article
Comments are short materials that express an opinion or observation regarding a published article. Comments are sent to reviewers and the authors of the article to provide them with an opportunity to prepare a response to the comment.
The authors' response to the comment is also sent to the reviewer. The author of the comment has the opportunity to reply to the authors once again, after which further correspondence between the comment author and the article authors may continue privately.
The decision to publish comments is made by the editor of NAUCHNYI DIALOG. The comment, responses, and replies are linked to the original version of the article they relate to.
Responsibility of Journal Management: Editorial Board, Editors, Publisher, Founder
Principles of Editorial Board Formation
The editorial board of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG follows the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) when forming its editorial board.
Potential members of the editorial board/council can be recommended to the editor-in-chief by current members of the editorial board/council, reviewers, and authors.
Editors who wish to participate in the journal's work as a member of the editorial board/council can submit an application to the editor-in-chief.
All potential members of the editorial board/council must agree to the following conditions:
- A member of the editorial board/council of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG cannot be an editor simultaneously invited to work on a special issue for another journal;
- • A member of the editorial board/council of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG cannot be an editor simultaneously responsible for making final decisions on manuscript publication in another journal;
- • All potential members of the editorial board/council must be willing to provide information to the editorial office of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG about all potential and actual conflicts of interest (e.g., any activities related to publishing scientific journals and books, membership in editorial boards/councils of other journals, as well as any conflicts of interest that may arise after their appointment).
All potential members of the editorial board/council must answer the following questions:
Duties of a member of the editorial board/council:
- Reviewing submitted manuscripts within their area of expertise and in the absence of external reviewers. Reviewing should be conducted in accordance with the approved Peer Review Policy of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG.
- Selecting reviewers for submitted articles at the request of the managing editor, monitoring the peer review process for submitted articles.
- Making decisions on the possibility of publishing an article after all rounds of review. Decisions are passed on to the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision on publication feasibility.
- Inviting authors and reviewers to collaborate with the journal.
A member of the editorial board/council can be dismissed from their position for the following reasons:
- Violation of publication ethics: concealing conflicts of interest, information, or using their status for personal gain;
- Failure to fulfill assigned duties for a year without valid reason and without coordination with the editor-in-chief;
- At the request of the member of the editorial board/council.
Privileges of a member of the editorial board/council:
- Articles by members of the editorial board/council of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG are considered with priority;
- Members of the editorial board/council of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG are exempted or partially exempted from payment for editorial services;
- A member of the editorial board/council can serve as an invited editor for a special issue of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG;
- Information about a member of the editorial board/council is posted on the website of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG with necessary links to profiles in databases, affiliations, and other necessary data.
The possibility of potential candidates participating as members of the editorial board/council is considered at regular meetings of the editorial board/council.
The final decision on including a potential candidate in the composition of the editorial board/council is made by the editor-in-chief.
Editor's Responsibility
The editor of the scientific journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG personally and independently takes responsibility for making a decision on article publication. The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG follows the journal's policy when considering an article and making a decision on its publication.
The editor may discuss the article and reviewer's comments with other editors and reviewers, provided that these discussions are justified and legal, without using the discussed materials for personal purposes.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG must evaluate the content of the manuscript regardless of the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG must ensure confidentiality and not disclose information about the manuscript to third parties unnecessarily (except for other journal editors, reviewers, publishers, and founders).
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG must inform the editor-in-chief about all conflict situations, as well as about the discovery of critical errors or accusations by authors or reviewers regarding violations of publication ethics that come to the journal, in order to take necessary actions in such cases: making changes, publishing refutations, retracting the article, expressing doubts.
The editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG participates in the investigation of any ethical violations related to manuscripts under consideration and published articles, and makes every effort to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible. If necessary, the editor of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG interacts with the author's organization to conduct a more thorough investigation.
Publisher's Responsibility
The publisher of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG is responsible for adhering to all modern recommendations and requirements for maintaining the integrity of scientific materials published in the journal.
The publisher follows the policy of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG regarding compensation for manuscript preparation and publication, as well as revenue from advertising and reprints. The publisher of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG ensures that potential profits from advertising and reprints do not influence the editors' decision on manuscript publication.
The publisher of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG does not interfere with editorial processes, but if necessary and at the request of the editors, may participate in investigations of publication ethics violations and send official inquiries on behalf of the publisher to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishers.
The publisher of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG is obligated to implement industry standards in the work of the publishing house in order to improve the ethical component of the journal's operations.
The publisher of the journal NAUCHNYI DIALOG is required to provide comprehensive legal support to the editorial team of the journal when necessary.
Founder's Responsibility
The founder of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal adheres to the principle of editorial independence: the director of the founding organization and its employees do not interfere in the editorial process.
The founder of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal may recommend potential members of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors, but the final decision on collaboration with them is made by the editor-in-chief.
The founder of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal supports the need for geographical and gender diversity among members of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors.
The founder of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal does not prioritize financial and political gain over the quality of the journal. The editors of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal make decisions on manuscript publication based on their quality and relevance to the target audience of the journal.
The founder of NAUCHNYI DIALOG journal does not interfere in editorial processes but may participate in investigations of publication ethics violations and send official inquiries on behalf of the founder to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishers, if necessary and at the request of the editors.
Author fees
By submitting their manuscript to the Editorial Office, the author expresses consent to publish their work in open access under the following article processing charges (APC):
- original research article / review article up to 5,000 words – 26,000 RUB.
In cases where authors would like to publish an article exceeding the established page limits, an additional payment for each page is charged.
All articles published in the Journal are freely available immediately upon publication, following agreements signed between the Journal and partner scientific databases and libraries.
No article submission charge is paid; peer-review evaluation of all submissions is free. The article processing charge (APC) is charged to cover the costs of article production and liaison with abstracting and indexing services. The APC is charged only upon article acceptance following peer review. Such a policy allows the Journal to make the content freely available to readers on liberal terms of its further use.
The APC fee charged does not affect editorial decisions, nor is it a basis for accepting an article.
The authors are free to cover their APC expenses by special agencies or research grants. To that end, the Journal provides the authors with all the necessary documentation (APC agreement, service acceptance certificate, payment invoice).
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
The conflict of interest disclosure policy was updated on 06/27/2023.
When submitting an article, the authors and groups of authors enter into the file an indication of a conflict of interest or its absence.
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
"Nauchnyi dialog" 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
Final Versions of Manuscripts
The editorial board of the Nauchnyi dialog allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
- personal website or blog;
- institutional repository;
- disciplinary repository;
- direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
Data sharing policy
Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.
Definition of research data
This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal Nauchnyi dialog. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.
Definition of exceptions
The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.
Data repositories
The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.
Data citation
The Editorial Board of the Journal Nauchnyi dialog welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Journal Nauchnyi dialog does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal Nauchnyi dialog does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.
Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal Nauchnyi dialog.
CrossMark Policy
CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal Nauchnyi dialog is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.
