Política Editorial
Tema da Revista
"Journal of Wellbeing Technologies" publishes original papers, review articles, essays and discussion covering the latest advances focused on research in the field of economic, sociological and philosophical sciences in the context of the challenges of sustainable development of society and its social and economic well-being.
Avaliação
Paper reviewing
Paper reviewing
- The editorial body of «Journal of Wellbeing Technologies» accepts the papers, prepared according to the Rules on the website of the Journal (Guide for authors). The paper is sent to the editorial office by means of the electronic system of paper submission (Send article).
- Articles are double-blind peer reviewed. The reviewers represent the leading Russian and foreign universities and scientific institutions. They are specialists in the field of the materials they review. The author receives back either the article with appreciation or the article with appreciation with recommendations for modification or the reasonable refusal of publication on a pre-printed form of the review (Application 1).
- The editorial staff does not inform the authors about editorial changes and reductions in the manuscript which do not affect the fundamental issues.
- The delivery date of the articles, which were sent for modification, is the return of the paper to the editorial office.
- In case if the author does not agree with the reviewer opinion, the paper may be sent to the second (additional) reviewing, by agreement with the Editorial Board. The Editor in Chief or the Editorial Board, if it is required, makes a decision on the appropriateness of publication after reviewing.
- The reviews are stored in the editorial office during five years. The copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the request.
Recommendations for the review content
The review must contain the objective expert analysis of the manuscript material, its reasoned estimation and sound recommendations.
The special attention should be paid to the following issues:
- correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal subject, general analysis of scientific level, terms, manuscript structure, relevance of the topic;
- scientific and practical novelty and significance of the material, scientific character of presentation, correspondence of the techniques, methods, recommendation and results of the research, used by the author, to the current achievements of science and practice;
- quality of material preparation and execution, language and style of the article, correspondence to the material execution requirements, length of a paper and volume of its elements (text, tables, figures, references), deficiencies and errors, made by the author.
The reviewer can recommend the author and the editorial body to improve the paper.
The reviewer comments and requests must be objective and fundamental. They should increase scientific and methodic levels of the paper.
The final part of the review should contain the valid conclusions on the paper and clear recommendation for the paper publication.
The reviewer must prove his/her conclusions in the case of negative review.
Application 1
Review of the paper in the «Journal of Wellbeing Technologies»
Author code ____________________________________________________
Title of the article ____________________________________________
Correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal subject (circle one)
Yes | No |
Relevance of the issue
Low | Below average | Average | Above average | High | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
Scientific novelty and significance
Low | Below average | Average | Above average | High | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
Practical novelty and significance
Low | Below average | Average | Above average | High | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
Quality of material preparation and execution
Low | Below average | Average | Above average | High | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
Opinion and notes
(write/print at reverse page)
Conclusions:
- The manuscript may be recommended for publication.
- The manuscript cannot be recommended for publication by the reasons given in no. 6.
- The manuscript may be recommended for publication in case of its modification according to the reviewer notes given in no. 6.
Reviewer code
Date of receipt Review date
Frequência de publicações
The journal is published quarterly (March, June, September, December).
Política de Acesso Livre
«Journal of Wellbeing Technologies» is an open access journal, which means articles can be read, downloaded, copied, distributed, printed, and cited in full for non-commercial purposes under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Publishing Ethics
Code of ethics for authors
Code of ethics
The future of science in general and scientific spheres of publication depends largely not only on compliance with laws and regulations, but also on the principles of ethics and scientific relations between the participants of the publishing community. This is the guarantee of increasing number of qualitative scientific publications, as well as the successful development of mutual cooperation of authors, publishers and readers of scientific publications. The common experience of ethical behavior is collected in one document – the Code of ethics of scientific publications (hereinafter the Code), developed by the ethics committee of scientific publications.
Key terms:
The Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications combines and reveals general principles and rules that should be followed by the participants of the process of scientific publications: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.
Author is a person or a group of persons (group of authors) involved in publishing research findings.
Plagiarism is an intentional appropriation of authorship of somebody’s science or art works, ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law and may entail legal liability.
Principles’ guidance for the author of scientific publications
The author (or a group of authors) realizes his primary responsibility for the novelty and validity of the results of research, which assumes compliance with following principles:
- The authors should provide valid research results. Wittingly wrong or forged statements are unacceptable.
- The authors should ensure the complete originality of the research results outlined in the submitted manuscript. The borrowed fragments or statements must be issued with the obligatory indication of an author and a source. The excessive borrowings as well as plagiarism in any form, including unregistered quotes, paraphrasing or assignment of rights to the results of other people's research are unethical and unacceptable.
- It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all people influenced somehow the research; the article must be provided with the references to the works that were significant when carrying out the research.
- The authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript, which has been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal.
- All people made significant contributions to the research should be included as co-authors of the article. It is unacceptable to mention people who did not participate in the research.
- The author must notify the Editorial board of the journal if he/she finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article while it is considered or after its publication.
Ethics Code of Scientific Publications
The Ethics code of scientific publications combines and reveals general principles and rules that should govern the relations of participants of scientific publishing: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.
Key terms:
Ethics of scientific publications is a system of standards of professional behavior in relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in creation, distribution and use of scientific publications.
Editor is a representative of a scientific journal or a publishing house, who provides material adaptation for publication and keeps on communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.
Author is a person or a group of persons (group of authors) involved in publishing research findings.
Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or a publishing house and carrying out a scientific expertise of author materials to determine feasibility of their publication.
Publisher is a legal or natural person publishing a scientific publication.
Reader is any person familiarized with published materials.
Plagiarism is an intentional appropriation of authorship of somebody’s science or art works, ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law and may entail legal liability.
Principles of professional ethics in editor and publisher work
An editor is responsible for publication of author works and must follow the basic principles:
- When deciding on publishing a paper a scientific journal editor is guided by provided data reliability and scientific significance of the research.
- The editor should evaluate intellectual content of manuscript regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, social status or political affiliation of authors.
- Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts must not be used for personal purposes or passed to third parties without written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained while editing and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
- An editor must not publish the information if there is a reasonable cause to believe that it is plagiarism.
- An editor and a publisher must respond to complaints regarding the accepted manuscripts or published materials and must take all necessary measures to redress for violated rights.
Ethical principles in reviewer work
Reviewer provides scientific expertise of author materials whereupon his/her action must be impartial in nature and follow the basic principles:
- A manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document, which cannot be transmitted for review or discussion to third parties who do not have full powers from a publishing house.
- A reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment to study results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
- Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts must not be used for reviewer personal purposes.
- The reviewer who, in his/her opinion, is not qualified to assess the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or the organization, must inform the editor with a request to exclude him/her from reviewing this manuscript.
The ethics code of scientific publications was developed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Scientific Publications.
The current text of the Code is available on www.publicet.org/code
Non-profit partnership "The Ethics Committee of Scientific Publications"
Russia, Moscow, mail@publicet.org