About

We ask authors to thoroughly consider both the content and the source of images included in their work before they submit these images to the Journal. If the submitted images may be potentially offensive for readers of the Journal or may violate a copyright, the Journal reserves the right to request that the authors select alternative images or express the same results in another way before the final version is published.

Reviewers must report any suspected misconduct of authors to the editorial office for investigation. This includes, but is not limited to, suspected.

The review process includes evaluation of the quality of references and citations in the manuscript; reviewer should point out the lack of some relevant literature if such has been found and should necessarily propose to add the missing references and justify why these references should be added.
Note that the Editors reserve the right to contest the excessive citation suggestions, especially concerning reviewer's own works. The Editors also reserve the right to remove the citation suggestions from reviewer's reports to protect the anonymity of the reviewer, but to offer the authors a list of additional references based on reviewer's suggestions.

Reviewers should inform the journal if they cannot review a paper or cannot do it in due time. Reviewers should not delay the review process without reason, either deliberately or not.

Reviewers should assess objectively the quality of the research, provide fair, frank and constructive criticism and avoid personal criticism of the authors. The reviewers' opinion should be explained and supported to allow the authors to understand the basis for the comments and judgments. The expressions should not be offensive or disparaging for the authors.

The names of reviewers are strictly confidential. The reviewer identity may be disclosed only to members of the Editorial Board of the Journal, who are also obliged to maintain confidentiality. You should not disclose your name to the authors, nor send reports directly to the authors.
The information and ideas gained while working as a reviewer should be kept secret and should not be used to get a competitive advantage. We also ask that you should not discuss the papers being reviewed with colleagues unless they have been published.

Standard review = Double anonymous peer review. In this case, neither the authors nor reviewers know the names of each other. The manuscript is sent to reviewers without indicating the authors' names. The authors themselves should prepare the manuscript in such a way that expressions pointing to the authorship are avoided (e.g., previously, 'we showed...' and the like).
Open recruitment of reviewers. A brief description of the manuscript including the title, the list of authors and abstract is posted on the Journal's website to open access in the section 'Open Peer Review' (the whole manuscript is not posted to open access). Then the manuscript is sent for reviewing to scientists who announced that they would like to peer-review this manuscript (and who comply with RCR requirements to reviewers: the presence of an academic degree and appropriate experience in the research field of the manuscript). RCR reserves the right to send the manuscript to additional peer-reviewers if necessary.
If the authors do not explicitly choose any of the options, the standard single anonymous peer review (variant 1) is used by default.

To ensure impartiality, reviewers should consider any potential conflict of interest before they agree to review the manuscript and should refuse in the following cases:
You are in direct competition with authors.
You are a co-worker or have personal relations with one of the authors.
You are affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors.
You can benefit from the work of authors (in commercial or other aspects).
You are in position that prevents you from giving an objective opinion of the work.
It is expected that reviewers would act in the spirit of the Nolan principles of public life.

If you cannot act as a reviewer because of a conflict of interest, we will choose another reviewer.
If you were asked for double anonymous reviewing and may suspect a potential conflict of interest, please inform the editorial office.

All authors and co-authors have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when they submit their manuscript. The conflicts of interest must be declared in the Acknowledgements section.

Examples of financial interests that should be disclosed:
Any direct sources of funds (employment, grants, patents, share ownership, sponsorship, etc.) or indirect sources of funds (consulting service, honoraria, equipment supplies, etc.) where the funding organization may gain or lose due to publication of the paper or where it is noticed that they might have influenced the submitted work.

Examples of personal relations/academic competitions that should be disclosed:
Any unpaid roles of authors that could influence the process of publication. These include unpaid advisory relationships and membership of professional organizations.
Any personal relations/beliefs that can be treated as a conflict should also be disclosed. This includes the presence of a relative employed at the organization that funds the work.

It is difficult to indicate the threshold where a financial or other interest becomes significant. There are two practical guidelines to solve this issue:
to declare any competing interests that could put you in an awkward position if they become known to public after publication of the work;
to declare any information that, being disclosed later, would make a sensible reader to feel misled or deceived.

Declaring conflicts of interest:
Any potential conflicts of interest should be declared in the Acknowledgements section.

Duplicate publication, that is publication of several papers with the same or essentially the same content by the same authors, is considered to be unacceptable for the Journal. The submitted manuscripts must be novel and original.
The amount of material taken from a single source publication should not exceed 5% of the submitted review and should not exceed 50% of the cited paper (or 5%, if the cited paper is a review). All information taken from earlier publications should be accompanied by references to the sources.
Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should have a reference to the original source and should comply with the relevant copyright agreements and permission requirements. In the case of doubts, the authors should get permission from the original publisher before any work is published once again.

All manuscripts are checked for quotation from earlier publications. RCR adheres to the international publishing standards that do not allow copying and close paraphrasing (such as addition of parenthetical words) of already published papers, including the own papers of the authors. The text of reviews should be original and carry new ideas, analysis and conclusions.

RCR consistently applies the principles of publication ethics outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
References
The authors must fully acknowledge the works of other scientists that they use in their research and cite publications that influenced their research. Reviews give an analysis of the data published previously; therefore, there can be no unpublished experimental results that have not been peer-reviewed earlier.
All references should correspond to their sources and should be arranged in such a way as to cause no misunderstanding or confusion with other sources (see Guidelines for Authors).All significant extracts, numerical data, tables and figures should be accompanied by references to the corresponding sources. Each figure should have information about the source and permission for reproduction. It is responsibility of authors to collect such permissions. References should be useful for readers and correspond to the essence of the paper; the authors should make sure that the references are relevant and accessible.
The practice of including redundant references to authors' own works or to works of other researchers just for promotion or for increasing the number of citations is unethical. RCR thoroughly checks the submitted manuscripts for this practice.

Ethical policy is an inherent part of our recommendations for authors and reviewers. The Russian Chemical Reviews journal adheres to the principles of publication ethics outlined in the main guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All manuscripts submitted for publication are treated equally, irrespective of race, gender, religion, ethnic affiliation, citizenship, political views, sexual orientation, age and reputation of the authors.
Handling cases of alleged misconduct
RCR takes ethical allegations seriously.
The relationship between the Journal and our authors is based on trust, and we publish submitted materials in good faith. However, if a possible breach of ethical standards is brought to our knowledge, we will thoroughly investigate the case with the help of independent experts. Each case will be examined with all persons involved to ensure complete objectivity.
Any action will be as delicate as possible, being guided by the statements and rules recommended by COPE.
All relevant parties will be certainly informed about the outcome of the case.

A review presents an analysis of the data published previously; therefore, there can be no unpublished experimental results that have not been peer-reviewed earlier.

If an error is discovered in a published paper, it should be recognized and a correction note, erratum or retraction should be published. The corrections should be approved by all authors of the original paper if there are no specific reasons that make this impossible. In this case, any disagreement between the authors should be noted in the published correction note.

The authors must not fabricate, falsify or distort data or results. They should strive to be objective, unbiased and truthful in all aspects of their work.
The authors must be honest in making statements and drawing conclusions regarding the results of both their own research and research of other authors.
The authors should critically evaluate the probability of experimental, methodological and human errors and avoid self-deception and bias. Where possible, they should conduct an internal verification to assess the validity of their work before publication.

It is highly unethical to submit to a journal a manuscript that has already been submitted to another journal, or to submit a manuscript to a second journal during the period it is under consideration in our journal.
The authors are responsible for ensuring that the paper is not under consideration in any other journal at the time of submission or during the consideration in our journal.
If parallel submission is revealed, the manuscript will be rejected immediately and the authors will be marked as unfair and untrustworthy.

An attempt to impersonate another person is a serious breach of ethics. The Journal has the right to request proof of identity in the cases where identity fraud or impersonation are alleged or suspected.
The authors should submit their manuscript to the editorial office themselves, without involving other persons, by e-mail or using the RCR's manuscript submission system. The submission by somebody else on behalf of the authors is considered to be serious breach of this policy and the Journal has the right to immediately reject a manuscript that was found to be submitted on behalf of the authors but not by the authors themselves.

In the cases where an author sadly passed away before a paper has been submitted, we need consent from a relative of a legal representative of the deceased person for reviewing the paper for the possible subsequent publication. The deceased authors are still eligible for co-authorship if they made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper (see above).

Any changes in the list of authors during the publication process must be approved by all authors of the review, and all authors must confirm to the journal that they give their consent to this change. It is necessary to send a letter to the editorial office explaining the reasons behind the change in the list of authors, signed by all co-authors. Alternatively, the letter may be sent and signed by the corresponding author, and the other authors can indicate that they agree with the changes by sending messages to the editorial office from their personal e-mail addresses.

The list of authors should include all and only those who made a significant intellectual contribution to the publication in the order agreed upon between the authors. The Journal cannot arbitrate in the issues concerning the authorship. The Journal has the right to refuse the publication of a review if the authors cannot reach an agreement.

The Journal believes that everyone is entitled to courtesy, fairness and respect. We commit to treating everyone we work with fairly, professionally and without bias, and we expect our staff to be treated in the same way at all times. Discrimination against any person is not admissible. This includes, in particular, discrimination on the grounds of race, age, gender, location, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, religion/belief, human rights, social/economic status, political views, reputation and/or scientific standpoint. Any threatening, bullying and/or cause of distress for another person is not admissible and may be the reason for refusal of further cooperation.
RCR reserves the right to refuse to publish any content that, in its opinion, contains slander, offense or hate speech.

Misconduct investigations are sensitive and may take time. We appreciate your patience during the investigation.
Due to the nature of investigations, we cannot point out the exact date by which a particular case will be resolved.
RCR has the right to contact the author's institution regarding the allegations of misconduct in conformity with the COPE guidelines.
RCR has the right to request proof of identity if identity theft is suspected.
RCR reserves the right to issue an expression of concern for the paper that is the subject of ongoing investigation, for example, if the case cannot be resolved quickly or if a third party is involved.
If the breach of ethics concerns an unpublished work (a submitted manuscript or an accepted manuscript that is not available on the site as yet), RCR reserves the right to reject the paper or to withdraw the acceptance.
RCR reserves the right not to work with anyone who is abusive to our staff, authors, reviewers, or editors. Please, see our policy on respect for others to gain more information.
To report any concerns related to potential misconduct, please contact the editorial office.