1. Identifying ethical violations
1.1. Violations of publication ethics may be discovered and brought to the attention of the editor or publisher by anyone at any time.
1.2. Violations of ethics may include, but are not limited to, the examples provided in the section on publication ethics.
1.3. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct must provide sufficient information or sufficient evidence to initiate an investigation. All applications must be treated with the utmost seriousness until a final decision or conclusion is reached.

2. Investigation
2.1. The initial decision should be made by the editor, who should consult with the publishers when appropriate.
2.2. All necessary data should be collected, but dissemination of information beyond the circle of those who are supposed to know should be avoided.

3. Minor violations
3.1. Minor violations can be dealt with without the involvement of third parties. In any case, the author must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

4. Serious violations
4.1. Serious violations may require notification to the accused's employer. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or members of the scientific community, must decide whether it is appropriate to inform the employer, either through independent review of the available data or through further consultation with a limited number of experts.

5. Consequences (in order of increasing severity; can be applied both separately and in combination)
5.1. Informing or educating the author or reviewer about misunderstandings or violations of publication standards.
5.2. A warning letter to the author or reviewer, revealing violations of ethics and warning of possible consequences.
5.3. Official publication on the website about identified violations.
5.4. Publication of an editorial text describing in detail the essence of the violations.
5.5. A formal letter to the head of the department in which the author or reviewer works.
5.6. Formal withdrawal of an article from the journal, along with informing the head of the department in which the author or reviewer works, international databases indexing the journal, and readers of the journal.
5.7. Imposing a ban on publications of a given author (involving a given reviewer) for a certain period.
5.8. Report a known case to a professional organization or higher authority for the purpose of further investigation and further action.

6. Revocation (retraction) of articles
When considering situations related to the retraction (retraction) of articles, the editors and publisher of the journal are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the Ethics Council of ANRI (Rule of retraction (retraction) of an article from publication).

Reasons for retracting the article:

• detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which calls into question its scientific value
  
• duplication of publication in several publications
  
• detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication.
  

An article can be retracted upon an official request from the authors who have motivatedly explained the reason for their decision, as well as on the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or publisher based on their own expertise. In the latter case, an official letter is sent to the author (or the leading author in the team of authors) with information about the reasons for retracting the article.

After a retraction, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI, but is marked as retracted. The same note is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced by an identical version with a watermark on each page indicating that the article has been retracted.

The editors publish a statement about the retraction of the article, indicating the reasons and date of retraction on the official website of the journal and in the next printed issue.

Information about the retraction of an article and its PDF version with appropriate markings are sent to the NEB (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also transferred to the Ethics Council of Scientific Publications of ANRI for inclusion in the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.

The journal “State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide” and its publisher “Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation” (hereinafter referred to as RANEPA) adhere to the standards of editorial ethics and make efforts to suppress its violation.

The editors reserve the right to reject publication of an article in case of violation of the rules specified below

1.1. Publication decision

The editor of the scientific journal “State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide” is personally and independently responsible for making decisions about publication. The credibility of the work under review and its scientific significance should always form the basis of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board, subject to current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors and reviewers when making decisions about publication.

1.2. Decency

The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.

1.3. Confidentiality

The editor and the Editorial Board of the journal are obliged not to unnecessarily disclose information about an accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of authors, reviewers, possible reviewers, other scientific advisers and the publisher.

1.4. Engagement and collaboration within research

The editor, together with the publisher, takes adequate response measures in the event of ethical claims relating to the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2.1. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with reason.

2.2. Performance

Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review a manuscript or does not have sufficient time to complete the work quickly must notify the Journal Editor and request to be excluded from the review process for the relevant manuscript.

2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as confidential. This work must not be opened or discussed with any person not authorized to do so by the editor.

2.4. Acknowledgment of primary sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is relevant to the topic and not included in the manuscript's bibliography. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published must have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also bring to the editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the reviewer's area of ​​expertise.

2.5. Conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions or relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

3.1. Requirements for manuscripts

Authors of original research reports must provide credible results of their work, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient detail and bibliographical references for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective, and the editorial point of view must be clearly stated.

3.2. Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that the work presented is entirely original and, when using the work or statements of other authors, must provide appropriate bibliographical references or excerpts.

Plagiarism can come in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as original, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without attribution), to claiming ownership of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and will not be tolerated.

3.3. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

In general, an author should not publish a manuscript that is substantially the same study in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.

3.4. Acknowledgment of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the work related to the confidential sources.

3.5. Authorship of the publication

Authors of a publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-authors. Where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of ​​the research project, they should be listed as significant contributors to that research.

The author must ensure that all participants who made significant contributions to the study are listed as co-authors and that those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agree to its submission for publication.

3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work.

3.7. Significant errors in published works

If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the editor of the journal “State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide” or the publisher and interact with the editor in order to promptly withdraw the publication or correct errors. If the editor or publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author must withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

4.1 The RANEPA publisher must follow principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by editors, reviewers and authors of the journal “State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide” in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be confident that potential profits from advertising or reprinting have not influenced the editors' decisions.

4.2. The publisher should support the journal's editors in addressing ethical concerns about published materials and assist in interacting with other journals and/or publishers if this contributes to the performance of the editors' responsibilities.

4.3. The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retractions, and correction procedures.

4.4. The publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) where necessary.