The policy of the journal "Standard of living of the population of the regions of Russia" on publication ethics and prevention of abuse is based on the Guidelines on the principles of ethics of scientific publications for journal editors Of the Committee on publication Ethics (SORE, official website http://publicationethics.org).

1. Duties and responsibilities of the editor

Making decisions about publishing. The editor-in-chief of the magazine" Standard of living of the population of Russian regions " is responsible for making decisions on publication and is subject to the current legislation in the field of defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. When making a decision to publish an article, the editor-in-chief takes into account the opinions of reviewers and members of the editorial Board.

Impartiality when accepting manuscripts for publication. The editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts based solely on their scientific content. The author's race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political position do not affect the decision to publish.

Privacy. The editor-in-chief does not disclose the content of the manuscript submitted for publication to anyone, with the possible exception of members of the editorial Board and experts to whom the manuscript is sent for review.

The editorial Board considers it unacceptable for members of the editorial Board or reviewers to use unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the authors.

Preventing conflicts of interest. If there is a conflict of interest, the editor-in-chief and other members of the editorial Board do not participate in the process of reviewing the manuscript. The editorial Board asks the experts to whom it requests to write a review to report the existence of a conflict of interest; in this case, the expert is not involved for reviewing.

Investigation of violations of ethical principles. If a violation of ethical principles is found in a manuscript or already published article, the editor-in-chief may conduct an appropriate investigation and decide to publish its results.

1. Duties and responsibilities of the reviewer

Contribution to the decision-making process. Reviewing helps the editor - in-chief to make a decision on the publication of the article, and the author (through the process of interaction between the reviewer and the editor-in-chief) - to improve the content of their manuscript.

Privacy. Any manuscript received for review is considered by the expert as a confidential document, not subject to transfer to anyone and discussion with anyone other than the editor-in-chief. Unpublished materials should not be used by an expert without the author's consent.

Standards of objectivity. Reviewers should Express their position clearly and support it with arguments. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Confirmation of sources. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to any case of significant similarity or coincidence of the reviewed manuscript with any published work that he knows about. If the reviewer finds that the manuscript does not contain references to works whose results are closely related to their content, they should indicate this in the review.

Conflict of interest. Reviewers should inform the editor - in-chief of any conflicts of interest arising from competing relationships or collaborations.

1. Duties and responsibilities of the author

Material delivery standards. The article should contain the necessary detailed information and links so that others can repeat the research. False or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable in the article.

Access to data and save it. Authors may be asked to provide source data when reviewing an article by the editorial Board, and they should be prepared to provide public access to this data in accordance with the data and databases Statement Of the Association of learned and Professional society publishers (ALPSP), if feasible, and in any case should be prepared to retain this data for some time after publication.

Originality of the work and plagiarism. Authors must ensure that they have written a completely independent work and, if they have used someone else's work and/or statements, this is reflected in the form of appropriate links and citations.

Simultaneous submission of the article and the secondary publication. Submitting manuscripts that do not differ significantly in content to different journals at the same time is unethical behavior and unacceptable.

When submitting an already published article to another journal, the author must notify the editor-in-chief and obtain the consent of the editor-in-chief of the journal in which the article was published for the first time. The link to the primary work must be in the secondary publication.

Links. Authors should refer to works whose results are closely related to the results of their manuscript.

Problems of authorship. The authors of the article can only be those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, development, implementation or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors of the article. If there are other individuals who have been significantly involved in certain aspects of the research project, they should be thanked or identified as participants in the project. An author submitting an article to the journal guarantees that all co-authors who meet the above criteria are listed, and only they, that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to submit it for publication.

Disclosure and conflict of interest. All authors should indicate in their manuscripts any conflict of interest that could potentially affect the interpretation of the results of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works. If the author discovers or learns from third parties about a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, he should notify the editor-in-chief as soon as possible and in cooperation with him withdraw or correct the article.

1. Complaints

Complaints procedure. Authors who are not satisfied with the work and decisions of the editorial Board have the right to appeal to the editor-in-chief of the journal with a complaint and request for additional review of the article.

Actions of the editor-in-chief to review the complaint. A Commission of independent experts on the subject of the article is created to review the specific case. The Commission is created from among candidates and doctors who are not members of the editorial Board, at the invitation of the editor-in-chief or Executive Secretary.

The editor - in-chief and editorial Board are guided by the decision of the independent Commission in further actions regarding the article.