- » 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
- » Revenue Sources
- » Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Aim and Scope
The aim of “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” is to promote cutting-edge theoretical and practical developments in public, municipal and corporate administration.
This aim determines the following practical tasks:
- creating an open information environment, which will facilitate the communication between the leading experts and young researchers in administrative science;
- promoting international cooperation and the development of an international community of administrative specialists;
- facilitating the development of an independent school of administrative thought in MSU and strengthen its connections with professional and education communities;
- cutting down the time necessary for publication of essential up-to-date articles;
- providing fast and easy access to recently published material on public, municipal and corporate administration.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
6 issues per year
Open Access Policy
This 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
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer. The manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 6-8 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
- Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright. - If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
- We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
- If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
- The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
- Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
- Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
- Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)"
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.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.
3.6.2. 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.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- Federal State Budgetary Institution of Higher Professional Education “Lomonosov Moscow State University”
Author fees
Publication in "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
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
"Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" 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
The editorial board of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.
Preprints
The editorial board of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.'
A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)".
The author must notify the editorial board of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.
It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.
Do not delete the preprint text.
Manuscripts Accepted for Publication
The editorial board of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication 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.
The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.
Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)".
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.
Final Versions of Manuscripts
The editorial board of the "Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)" 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.
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints.
Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence
This section is based on Elpub materials and recommendations of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
This policy regulates the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools designed to create and modify new content (text, code, images, data). The process of spelling and punctuation check using the tools of modern text editors is not regulated by the policy.
- Key provisions
No program with Generative AI can be named an author or co-author of an article and cannot be noted as having contributed to the work on the article.
Any result obtained with the help of AI should be critically evaluated by a human.
Any use of AI must be disclosed appropriately.
Responsibility for information obtained with the help of AI is solely the responsibility of humans.
The current policy is not final, individual points may be revised depending on the conditions of work with generative AI and progress in this area.
- Policy for Authors
Using Generative AI
The Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” does not accept the use of Generative AI programs for the preparation of scientific articles, including:
- solving the Authors’ key tasks: generating scientific ideas, scientific conclusions, or developing recommendations; AI should not replace critical aspects of scientific work, such as interpreting data, drawing conclusions, and creating reliable content;
- creating any type of content, including abstracts, illustrative and additional materials.
Among other things, the Editorial Board prohibits the use of AI in the following aspects:
- spelling and punctuation check;
- selection and arranging of the bibliographic references;
- improving the readability of the article text;
- formatting the text according to the requirements of the journal;
- generation of ideas;
- analysis of source data;
- development of design and/or research methods;
- systematisation of sources for the review;
- writing the program code;
- creating and/or improving the structure of the article.
Image and data generation and editing
Generative AI cannot be used to create or modify images and source data, as well as to prepare graphical annotations.
Quoting Generative AI program’s responses in the text
Quoting the AI program’s responses in the text of the article is unacceptable.
Responsibility and disclosure of information
When submitting a manuscript to the journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” the Authors should ensure that they do not use tools with Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) when preparing the article. The Authors are fully responsible for the content of their work and are obliged to ensure its originality and compliance with ethical standards.
- Policy for Reviewers
The Reviewers of the journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” are not allowed to use Generative AI when conducting a review, even with the aim of improving the quality of the review. In particular, the Editorial Board considers it unacceptable:
- to use a program with Generative AI to evaluate the article;
- to upload the text (fragments) of the article and/or the text (fragments) of the review to an AI program due to possible violation of confidentiality.
The Reviewer should inform the Editor if there is:
- desire to conduct additional verification of the manuscript using AI detectors;
- suspicion that AI has been used in the article under review.
The responsibility for compliance with the terms of this policy and the content of the reviews lies entirely with the Reviewers.
- Policy for Editors
The Editors of the journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” are not allowed to use generative AI for:
- editing the article, even in order to improve the style and language of the work;
- processing and combining Reviewers’ comments;
It is unacceptable for Editors to upload the text (fragments) of the article and/or the text (fragments) of the review to an AI program due to possible violation of confidentiality.
At the same time, it is allowed to use protected licensed technologies to check texts for plagiarism.
- Editorial actions upon detection of undisclosed use of Generative AI (before or after the publication)
If there is suspicion of undeclared use of Generative AI before or after the publication of the article, the Editorial Board of the journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” can act as follows:
- request clarifications from the Authors (including confirmation of the independent work with the text of the article – drafts, raw data);
- check the text of the article in an alternative Generative AI detector (without using an AI Chabot).
The discovery of undeclared use of Generative AI in the article is recognized by the Editorial Board as unfair behaviour of the Authors, and therefore the article may be:
- rejected from the publication – if a problem is identified before the publication;
- withdrawn (retracted) – if the use of AI is disclosed after the publication.
- Resolution of disputes
The decision on each case that raises suspicion is individual. In case of disputes, the Editorial Board of the journal “Public Administration. E-journal (Russia)” builds on existing guidelines and recommendations, as well as its own policy regarding the use of Generative AI.
