Publishing Ethics

 

The FM journal adheres to the ethical standards defined by COPE, including transparency in the processes of manuscript submission, peer review, and publication; impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers; academic integrity through the avoidance of plagiarism, data fabrication, and duplicate publication; appropriate authorship with a clear definition of each author’s contribution; handling of complaints through open and clearly defined procedures for the consideration of appeals and ethics-related complaints; and the retraction and correction of articles through established procedures for retractions, corrections, and the notification of errors.

The journal supports the principles of responsible research assessment DORA by not relying solely on bibliometric indicators (such as impact factor and h-index), but by evaluating research on the basis of its quality, originality, and contribution to scientific knowledge; by valuing diverse research outputs—including software, data, algorithms, and technical solutions—rather than limiting recognition to journal articles alone; by recognizing interdisciplinary research as equally important as traditional publications; and by encouraging open science practices, including the publication of preprints and open access to research data and source code.

When scientific publications are published, they are checked for compliance with the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability).

The statement below outlines the ethical principles expected from all participants in the publication process of this journal, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher (State Scientific Institution “Institute for Single Crystals”). It is formulated in accordance with the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE.

Duties of Authors

  1. Standards of Reporting
    Authors are expected to provide a truthful and precise description of the research conducted, along with an impartial evaluation of its importance. Research findings must be presented transparently, without fabrication, falsification, or improper manipulation of data. Manuscripts should include adequate methodological detail and appropriate references to enable reproducibility by other researchers. Any form of deliberate misrepresentation or false statements is considered unethical and will not be tolerated. Submissions must comply with the journal’s established guidelines.

  2. Originality and Proper Attribution
    Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Manuscripts should not be submitted simultaneously to multiple journals unless prior consent has been obtained from the editors. All relevant prior studies, including the authors’ own previously published work, must be appropriately cited. When text is reproduced verbatim from other sources, it must be clearly indicated with quotation marks and accompanied by proper citations.

  3. Duplicate and Redundant Publication
    In general, authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Publishing substantially similar content or reporting the same research findings in multiple journals is considered unacceptable. If multiple publications arise from a single research project, this relationship must be clearly disclosed, and the original or primary publication must be properly referenced.

  4. Recognition of Sources
    All data sources and influential publications that contributed to the development of the reported research must be duly acknowledged. Proper credit must always be given to the work and ideas of others.

  5. Authorship Criteria
    Authorship should accurately reflect individual contributions to the research and its presentation. Only those who have made significant intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study should be listed as authors. Contributors whose involvement was limited to technical or minor assistance should be recognized in the acknowledgements. All listed authors must have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission.

  6. Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure
    Authors are required to disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived as influencing the research outcomes or their interpretation. All sources of funding supporting the work must be clearly stated in the manuscript.

  7. Errors in Published or Submitted Work
    If a significant error or inaccuracy is identified after submission or publication, authors must promptly inform the journal editor or publisher and cooperate fully in correcting or retracting the work as necessary.

  8. Safety and Ethical Considerations
    Manuscripts should clearly indicate if the research involves hazardous materials, procedures, or equipment. Any potential risks associated with their use must be explicitly described, particularly when the work involves human or animal subjects.

Duties of Editors

  1. Decisions on Publication
    Editors are responsible for deciding whether a manuscript should be accepted, declined, or returned to the authors for revision, based primarily on evaluations provided by reviewers and the editorial board. These decisions must be guided by the scientific validity of the work and its relevance to the journal’s readership. Editors should act in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and comply with applicable legal requirements, including those related to defamation, copyright, and plagiarism. Consultation with other editors or reviewers may be undertaken as needed. Editors are ultimately accountable for the content they publish and must ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are in place to uphold quality standards and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

  2. Manuscript Evaluation and Peer Review
    Editors must conduct an initial assessment of each submission to determine its originality and suitability. The peer-review process should be managed in an objective, transparent, and responsible manner. Editors should clearly describe the journal’s review procedures to authors and specify which sections of the journal undergo peer review. Suitable reviewers with relevant expertise should be selected, while avoiding individuals with potential conflicts of interest.

  3. Impartiality and Equity
    Editorial decisions must be based solely on the academic merit of the submitted work, without discrimination on the basis of the authors’ personal characteristics or background. Upholding editorial independence and professional integrity is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased judgment. Given the influence editors hold over publication outcomes, maintaining objectivity throughout the decision-making process is of paramount importance.

  4. Confidential Handling of Submissions
    Editors are obliged to safeguard the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and related information. They must be attentive to issues concerning data protection and the privacy of individuals involved in the research. Where applicable, editors should ensure that appropriate informed consent has been obtained for both the conduct of the research and its publication.

  5. Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Disclosure
    Editors must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for personal research purposes without the explicit written permission of the authors. Furthermore, editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidential Handling of Manuscripts
    All materials submitted for review must be treated as confidential and regarded as privileged information. Reviewers must not share, disclose, or discuss manuscripts with others unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

  2. Verification of Citations and Ethical Concerns
    Reviewers are responsible for assessing whether authors have properly credited all data sources and relevant prior studies. They should draw attention to important published work that has been overlooked and ensure that claims relying on previously reported results are supported by appropriate references. If reviewers identify ethical concerns, significant overlap with other submissions or published articles, or any indication of possible misconduct in the research or manuscript preparation, they must inform the journal without delay. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor, and reviewers should not undertake independent investigations unless requested by the journal.

  3. Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation
    Manuscripts should be evaluated impartially and on the basis of their scholarly merit. Reviewers are expected to present their assessments clearly and support their opinions with reasoned arguments. Reviews should be constructive and aligned with the journal’s guidelines, offering feedback that assists authors in improving their work. Reviewers should also distinguish between additional analyses or experiments that are essential for validating the study’s conclusions and those that would merely enhance or extend the scope of the research.

  4. Conflicts of Interest and Use of Information
    Any confidential information or ideas obtained through the review process must not be used for personal benefit. Reviewers should decline to evaluate manuscripts where personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors, institutions, or related organizations could compromise impartiality. 

  5. Timeliness of Reviews
    Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within a reasonable and agreed-upon timeframe. They should accept review invitations only when they are confident they can meet the deadline and must promptly inform the journal if additional time is required. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the stipulated period, this should be communicated to the editor as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Related to Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics

The Editorial Office of the scientific journal Functional Materials adheres to the principles of openness, transparency, and ethical conduct in its activities. We strive to respond promptly, objectively, and impartially to all substantiated complaints submitted to the Editorial Office and to ensure their competent and constructive consideration.

Each complaint is reviewed individually by the Editorial Board and journal staff, taking into account its nature, scope, and complexity. In making decisions, the Editorial Office is guided by the recommendations of the COPE as well as by its own standards of ethical conduct.

Complaints and proposals should be sent to the journal’s official email address.

Each submission is considered within 13 working days from the date of receipt. If a case requires additional analysis or consultation, the review period may be extended, and the complainant will be informed accordingly. 

A complaint must be concise, clear, and specific; contain sufficient information to allow assessment of a potential breach of publication ethics; and, where possible, be accompanied by supporting documents or evidence.

In the event of personal complaints directed at authors, editors, reviewers, or members of the Editorial Board, the Editorial Office provides an official response explaining why such matters fall outside the journal’s компетence.

The Editorial Office reserves the right not to consider complaints that contain offensive, threatening, discriminatory, or defamatory statements.

If, as a result of the review, significant violations of ethical standards or data unreliability are identified, the Editorial Office may decide to retract a previously published article.

The final decision in such cases is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

 

Peer review

This journal follows a single anonymized review process. Our editors will initially assess your submission to determine suitability for publication in this journal. If your submission is deemed suitable, it will typically be sent to a minimum of two reviewers for an independent expert assessment of the scientific quality. The decision as to whether your article is accepted or rejected will be taken by our editors. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers that they have written themselves or have been written by family members, colleagues, or that relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest.