Aim and Scope

Journal of Digital Technologies and Law is a unique platform intended for the exchange of creative, innovative and breakthrough ideas in the field of digital technologies and law, innovations in legal science and practice, synthesis and network communication. It unites on an ongoing basis leading scientists, experts and practicing lawyers with the aim of reviewing the best practices and scientific achievements in the sphere of digital technological innovations in their interrelations with the legal reality.

The journal sections comprise the main branches of law, take into account a wide range of legal issues, which is determined by the penetration of digital technologies into law and the legitimization of digital technologies, as well as by the complex system of relationships between legal and technological processes and phenomena in the light of the rapid spread of digitalization.

The journal mission consists in increasing the existing knowledge about innovations in law and digital technologies by attracting scientists and practitioners from Russia and other countries interested in discussing the most pressing issues on the digital agenda, spreading scientific achievements and experience, not only filling gaps in understanding and interpreting the processes of technological transformation of law and issues of the digitalization legal dimension, but also forming relevant points of growth of new knowledge and ideas about law and digital technologies. 

The journal aim is to form a scientific discursive space for improving the existing and developing new approaches to solving problems of legal regulation and protection of public relations associated with digital technologies.

While publishing the journal, the Editorial Board resolves several tasks:

• first, to create a widely accessible, open information field for all specialists related to the listed areas of research;
• second, to expand the scope of professional dialogue for the Russian and foreign researchers working in legal and adjacent fields of science;
• third, to establish a link between science and practice, providing legal scholars and practicing lawyers with the opportunity to publish the results of their original theoretical and empirical research, introducing readers to advanced scientific developments in legal and adjacent fields of knowledge;
• fourth, to attract the attention of specialists to the most relevant, promising and interesting areas of legal science;
• fifth, to strengthen cooperation between Russian and foreign scientific communities.

Section Policies

ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

1. Initial assessment of the manuscript compliance to the journal’s requirements

The assessment is performed by the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief) during 3–5 days after the article is received by the Editorial Office. The initial assessment of the manuscript covers its compliance to the journal’s academic sphere and the rules of manuscript formatting listed in the “Rules for Authors” section.

The manuscripts not complying with the formatting rules will be rejected. The repeated submitting is possible after the manuscript is formatted in compliance with the journal’s requirements.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked for borrowings using the anti-plagiarism system. The share of the original text should not be less than 75%. In case of detection of incorrect and/or unduly formatted borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The manuscripts that correspond to the journal topic, are formatted in accordance with the “Rules for Authors” and do not contain incorrect and/or unduly formatted borrowings, are accepted for review.

2. The reviewing procedure organization

All manuscripts accepted for review undergo a double blind review, which assumes that reviewers do not receive information about the author(s) of the manuscript, and the authors are not notified about who is reviewing their manuscript and receive the reviewers’ opinion from the journal Editorial Office.

The review procedure in the journal is focused on the maximally objective assessment of the manuscript content. Only those manuscripts that correspond to a high scientific level and are of value to the scientific community are accepted for publication.

The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate substandard research practices and incorrect and/or unduly formatted borrowings.

The main task of reviewing is to facilitate the strict selection of manuscripts for publication and to make detailed recommendations and suggestions for their improvement.

The author of the manuscript receives electronic messages signed by the journal Editorial Office or the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief).

3. The reviewing procedure

1. The articles reviewing is carried out by members of the Editorial Board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts on the subject of the reviewed material who have published in this field over the past three years. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the article expertise is made by the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief). When choosing a reviewer, the Editorial Board takes into account potential conflicts of interests: for example, a supervisor (scientific consultant) of the author, a subordinate or employer of the author, a co-author of previous articles, a close relative of the author of the manuscript cannot become a reviewer.

2. The articles reviewing is carried out on a voluntary and gratuitous basis. The journal Editorial Board uses a standard form when reviewing articles.

3. Each article is sent to two reviewers. The review period is two weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended for another two weeks. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a possible conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.

4. Based on the review results, the reviewer makes recommendations on the article (each decision of the reviewer must be justified):

• accept the article for publication as submitted;
• accept the article for publication after a minor revision and re-review;
• accept the article for publication after a significant revision and re-review;
• reject the article.

5. Provided the review contains recommendations for correcting and modifying the article, the Editorial Board sends the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to (partially or completely) refute them giving one’s reasons. The article modified by the author is re-sent for review. The article revision should not take more than two weeks from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors stating the need to make changes.

6. If the authors refuse to modify the materials, they must notify the Editorial Board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version in four weeks from the date of sending the review, the Editorial Board removes it from the register, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to modify the article. In such cases, an appropriate electronic message shall be sent to the authors about the manuscript withdrawal from registration due to the revision term expiration.

7. If the author and reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief) is entitled to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

8. The decision to reject the manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations. The article not recommended for publication by the decision of the Editorial Board is not accepted for reconsideration. In such cases, an appropriate electronic message about the refusal to publish shall be sent the authors.

9. After receiving a positive opinion of the reviewers and the decision of the journal Editorial Board to accept the manuscript for publication, the article is placed in the editorial portfolio for final processing. In such cases, the authors are sent an appropriate electronic message about the acceptance of the manuscript with an indication of the publication dates. The Editorial Board has the right to negotiate the approval of the final version of the manuscript with the author(s).

10. The positive opinion of a reviewer is not a sufficient reason for the article publication. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

11. Reviews are kept in the journal Editorial Office for five years.

12. The journal Editorial Board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a relevant request.

Publication Frequency

The journal publishes six issues a 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

Archiving in depositories and indexing systems is carried out for al articles.

All journal publications have the following codes:

• eLIBRARY Document Number (EDN) – a unique code attributed to all academic publications at eLIBRARY.RU platform.
• Digital Object Identifier (DOI) – a unique code attributed to academic publications by the Crossref international agency.

The Editorial Office downloads a copy of the journal to the following systems:

• National electronic-informational consortium;
• Scientific electronic library eLIBRARY;
• Scientific electronic library KiberLeninka;
• Platform for scientific publications Readera.

The Editorial Office aims at inclusion of the journal to the following systems:

• “Garant” reference-legal system;
• “KonsultantPlus” reference-legal system.

The journal provides backup and maintains access to the content. Backup copies of the journal issues are also stored on servers of Kazan Innovative University named after V.G. Timiryasov. In case of ceasing the journal publication, the access to issues shall be provided via the official website of Kazan Innovative University named after V.G. Timiryasov: https://ieml.ru

In case of the article cancellation, retraction or withdrawal or detecting errors in a publication, the publisher promotes storage of all versions of the publication.

Rules for Reviewers

Reviewers must follow the accepted editorial policy of the journal aimed at observing the ethical norm when reviewing articles.

The reviewer must:

1. Critically evaluate the manuscript, remaining constructive in their comments, and make detailed comments on the study and the manuscript to help the authors improve their work. The review must include an assessment of the study originality and significance; the research design; the research methodology, including analytical and statistical methods; the results presentation; and the validity of conclusions. Also, it is necessary to identify possible distortions and errors and evaluate the overall quality of the manuscript.

2. Within the established period, provide the Editorial Board with recommendations on the expediency of publishing the manuscript in this journal.

3. The reviewer must inform the Editorial Board about a potential conflict of interest that may arise in relation to the manuscript authors or content. In most cases, if a conflict of interest arises, the reviewer may refuse to review the proposed work.

4. The reviewer must guarantee the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscript and must not use this information in any way.

5. Double blind review implies that the reviewer receives the manuscript without the authors’ personal data, and the authors receive the reviewer’s conclusion without the reviewer’s personal data.

6. The reviewer should give detailed comments explaining their decision, as they can help the author to significantly improve the work.

The review is compiled according to the standard form provided by the Editorial Board for each type of manuscript with mandatory coverage of the following provisions:

• compliance with the subject area;
• relevance and scientific novelty;
• practical significance;
• ethics;
• validity of research methods, structure and content;
• quality of the article design: the presentation style, the terminology adequacy and compliance with that accepted in legal science.

Based on the manuscript review results, the reviewer gives one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept the article for publication as submitted.

The manuscript is ready for publication in the current form; it is justified, ethical, significant for the scientific community, and complements the previously published works; the writing style is clear and concise.

2. Accept the article for publication after a minor revision and re-review.

There are minor defects in the manuscript that need to be corrected. These may be poor style, lack of presentation clarity, insufficiently developed structure, errors in references, duplication of information in the tables and text. After making changes and re-evaluation, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

3. Accept the article for publication after a significant revision and re-review.

There are serious shortcomings and errors in the article that affect the reliability of the results obtained: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficient description of the study limitations, contradictory (or refuted by the author’s own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and drawings that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the manuscript can be accepted, rejected or sent for additional examination.

4. Reject the article.

The work does not meet the goals and objectives of the journal, has one or more irremediable shortcomings or serious ethical problems: consent to publication was not obtained in cases where it is necessary, the methods of conducting research are unethical, the methodology is discredited or erroneous (for example, the process that seriously affects the results was ignored).

Publishing Ethics

In its publication activity, the journal is guided by the ethical norms accepted by international and Russian academic community and strives to follow:

• the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
• the recommendations of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE)) for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English;
• the recommendations on publication ethics by Elsevier (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK)) for scientific peer-reviewed publications;
• the recommendations of the White Paper on Publication Ethics of the Council of Science Editors;
• the recommendations of the declaration “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications” of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASER).

The Publisher, the Editorial Office, the reviewers, and the authors accept the obligations stated below and they strictly adhere to them in their activities.

The Publisher’s obligations:

1. The Publisher follows the principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical duties by the Editorial Board, reviewers and authors of the journal.

2. The Publisher supports the Editorial Board of the journal in considering claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and helps to interact with other journals, publishers and professional associations, if this contributes to the fulfillment of their duties.

3. The Publisher promotes compliance with all good research practices and publishes relevant standards in order to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for the removal and correction of errors.

4. The Publisher provides appropriate legal support if it contributes to the fulfillment of the obligations by the journal's Editorial Board.

5. The Publisher contributes to the preservation of scientific data by introducing the best practices of archiving information. The Publisher promotes electronic backup and preservation of access to the contents of the journal.

6. If the Publisher discovers that the essence or conclusions of an already published article are erroneous, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, providing convincing evidence. If such information is received from the authors or readers of the journal, the Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief must inform each other mutually. The Publisher should facilitate the prompt publication of corrections, refutations, and retractions of the article, depending on the situation, in accordance with the COPE rules.

The Editorial Office’s obligations:

1. The Editorial Office of the journal is guided in its activities by the principles of scientific cognition, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality.

2. The Editorial Office carries out its interaction with the authors based on the principles of fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency.

3. The Editorial Office guarantees the high quality of the materials published in the journal and their content integrity.

4. The Editorial Office has the exclusive right to accept a manuscript for publication or to reject it.

5. The Editorial Office restricts access to the received manuscript to the following persons: author(s), reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, editorial and publishing staff of the publishing house.

6. The Editorial Office guarantees the confidentiality of the information contained in the received manuscript before its publication, as well as information created during the editing and reviewing process.

7. All manuscripts submitted to the journal, except for editorial materials clearly marked as such, undergo mandatory double-blind review.

8. The Editorial Office ensures the confidentiality of reviewers and the impartiality of the review process.

9. The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject the manuscript at the stage preceding the review, if there is a good reason for this (for example, inconsistency with the journal scope, an obviously low scientific level, re-publication, incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, etc.).

10. The Editorial Office decides on the publication or rejection of the article based on reviews, as well as on its scientific value, originality and relevance to the journal scope.

11. If there are positive and negative reviews of the same manuscript, the negative review is considered by the members of the Editorial Board having respective specializations and in case of divergence of opinions, the final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

12. The Editorial Office makes decisions regarding the publication of articles as soon as possible and sets them out in a clear and constructive form in an email to the author.

13. The Editorial Office does its best to prevent situations when authors, reviewers or other persons involved in the production of scientific texts commit unethical actions, for example, falsification, incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, re-publication, etc.

14. The Editorial Office, if necessary, ensures the publication of amendments, clarifications, refutations and apologies.

15. Editors should not have a conflict of interest with the authors of those articles that they reject or accept for publication.

16. The Editorial Office undertakes to publish the current rules for authors and reviewers in open access on the information and telecommunications network Internet.

17. The journal Editorial Office guarantees open access to publications, ensuring the storage of materials on the journal’s website on the information and telecommunications network Internet.

18. The content of each issue is discussed and approved at a meeting of the Editorial Board.

The Reviewer’s obligations:

1. The Reviewer should be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality.

2. The Reviewer should consider the manuscript provided to them as a confidential document that cannot be copied and transmitted for review and discussion to third parties, with the exception of authorized editorial staff, the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief) of the journal.

3. The Reviewer must refrain from disclosing information related to the review of the manuscript (data on its receipt, content, review stage, reviewer’s comments, final decision), providing it to the Editorial Office only.

4. The Reviewer guarantees that the information from the manuscript provided to them will not be used by them for personal purposes before the publication of the manuscript.

5. The Reviewer must carry out a scientific examination of the manuscript submitted to them, giving an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results.

6. The Reviewer should clearly indicate all unethical points in the work under consideration, such as: incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, self-citation, fictitious data, missing links, false statements, paraphrasing the results of other people’s research, etc.

7. A potential Reviewer must notify the Editorial Office of a conflict of interest between them and the work reviewed by them, its authors or the organization that finances this research.

The Author’s obligations:

1. The Author guarantees that the materials sent by them to the Editorial Office are not under consideration in another journal and have not been previously published. The exception is preprints in the form of abstracts at scientific conferences.

2. The Author, by submitting the manuscript to the Editorial Office, thereby confirms their authorship. The very fact of receipt of the manuscript to the Editorial Office means the automatic consent of all the manuscript with this action.

3. The Author who submits the manuscript to the Editorial Office guarantees that all participants in the manuscript creation are listed as co-authors. At the same time, it is unacceptable to indicate as co-authors persons who did not participate in the manuscript creation.

4. The Author undertakes to clearly indicate all sources of funding for the research that formed the basis of the manuscript, as well as other forms of support.

5. The Author, following scientific ethical standards, expresses gratitude to colleagues who have made a significant contribution to the article creation.

6. The Author submits to the Editorial Office a completely original work, avoiding incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, including excessive self-citation.

7. The Author should make every possible effort to avoid fictitious data in their work, missing links, false statements, incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, or paraphrasing the results of other people’s research.

8. The Author undertakes to notify the Editorial Office of the significant error or inaccuracy in the work published in the journal and to cooperate with the Editorial Office in the future in order to either withdraw the publication or correct it.

9. The Author guarantees that all the materials contained in their manuscript are either their own or are used by them with the author’s permission, which they must indicate in manuscript, taking into account compliance with the intellectual property law requirements.

10. The Author undertakes to cooperate with the Publisher, the Editorial Office and the Editorial Board throughout the process of publishing their manuscript.

11. The Author in their manuscript indicates all external sources of information relevant to the work, including their own previously published articles and scientific materials, arranging them in the form of citations or links.

12. The Author should avoid personal and disparaging remarks and accusations directed against other researchers.

13. The Author is obliged to notify the Editorial Office in advance of a potential conflict of interest that may affect the process of publishing materials.

Indexing

The journal is indexed in the following systems:

• The Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a bibliographic and reference index implemented in the form of a database accumulating information about publications of Russian scientists in Russian and foreign scientific editions.
• The Google Scholar – an open access search engine that indexes the full text of scientific publications in all formats and disciplines.

The Editorial Office pays great attention to the journal quality, trying to increase its ranking among similar editions and citation indexes of our authors; it actively works to include the journal in reference and full-text databases, scientometric and search engines.

Publications in the journal are included in the calculation systems of citation indexes of authors and journals.

The citation index is a numerical indicator that characterizes the article significance and is calculated on the basis of subsequent publications referring to this work.

Publication fees

The Editorial Office does not charge authors for the open access publication of articles, reviewing, preparation and publication of manuscripts.

The Editorial Office does not pay authors royalties for the publication of manuscripts.

The Editorial Office does not provide paid services.

Authorship recognition

When submitting a manuscript to the journal, the authors should make sure that:

• all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are listed as co-authors;
• those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors;
• all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

The editorial board believes that:

The authors of the publication can only be those persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the work conception, the development, execution and/or interpretation of the research results, as well as to the process of writing the manuscript (including those who carried out scientific and stylistic editing and design in accordance with the journal requirements).

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs.

Publication languages

The journal is bilingual: all articles are published simultaneously in the Russian and English languages.

The Editorial Office independently and free of charge translates articles from one language to another.

Conflict of interests

All authors must disclose (declare in the relevant section of the manuscript) financial or other explicit or potential conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed:

• receiving financial remuneration for participating in research or writing the manuscript;
• any connection (contract work, consulting, receiving fees, providing expert opinions) with institutions, enterprises and organizations that have a direct interest in the subject of research;
• patent application or registration of a patent for research results;
• obtaining financial support for any of the stages of conducting research or writing the manuscript (including grants and other financial provision).

Information about conflicts of interest received from the authors of manuscripts must be available only to the Editorial Board when making a decision on the publication of the manuscript. Then information about conflicts of interest must be published as part of the full text of the article.

The Reviewer must not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, institutions, enterprises and organizations associated with the submitted work.

Privacy

The Editorial Office and the Editorial Board must not unnecessarily disclose information about the manuscript under consideration to other persons, except for the authors, reviewers, possible reviewers, other scientific consultants, and the publisher.

Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the author.

Information or ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with any persons who do not have the authority to do so from the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief).

Borrowings and plagiarism

The Editorial Office of the journal, when reviewing the manuscript, obligatorily checks the material with the anti-plagiarism system. the originality of the text in English is checked with iThenticate or PlagiarismCheck platforms.

The share of the cited text and borrowings in the article should not exceed 25%.

In case of detection of incorrect and/or unformatted borrowings, the Editorial Office acts in accordance with the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Publication of issues

Published articles are sent to the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) within two weeks after all language versions of the issue are published on the website.

The terms of the placement of issues in international databases does not depend on the Editorial Office.

Preprint and Postprint Policy

Preprint Policy

A preprint is a draft of a manuscript or a scientific article (abstracts of reports at a scientific conference), which is provided for the expert review procedure conducted by the journal Editorial Office. A preprint is a scientific publication with which the author wants to familiarize interested persons and specialists in order to discuss and/or clarify the work results, published before the article publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

When submitting a preprint, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or accepted for publication in another scientific journal.

Preprints previously posted by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are accepted for review.

The incoming preprints are checked by the Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief) of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief (Chief Editor, Deputy Editor-in-Chief) appoints a reviewer who is an expert in the specified research topic. Further consideration of the preprint is carried out in the standard mode.

The author is entitled to use an electronic preprint of an unpublished manuscript in the form and content accepted by the publisher for publication in the journal. Such preprints may be posted as electronic files on the author’s website or on a secure external website of the author’s employer, but not for commercial sale or systematic external distribution by a third party. At the same time, the author must:

• include the following warning in the preprint: “This is a preprint of the article accepted for publication in the Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, copyright (year)”;
• ensure the placement of a full electronic link to the journal’s website.

Postprint Policy

A postprint is a scientific article that has passed an expert review procedure and is an officially published scientific material. The postprint includes both the author’s manuscript of a scientific publication and the editorial work of the publishing house – formatting and preparing the manuscript for publication.

When referring to an article published in the journal, the Editorial Office asks to post a full electronic link to the journal’s website.

Retraction

Bases for retraction (withdrawal) of an article:

• incorrect and/or unformatted borrowing (plagiarism) in the published article;
• duplication of the article in several editions;
• self-citation with a large volume of repeatability of research results and text already published in other editions;
• detection of falsifications or fabrications (for example, falsification of experimental data);
• detection of serious errors in the publication (for example, incorrect interpretation of research results), calling into question its scientific value;
• incorrect composition of authors (the one who deserves to be an author is lacking; persons who do not meet the criteria of authorship are included);
• hidden conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
• re-publication of the article without the author’s consent.

Procedure of retraction (withdrawal) of an article

1. The procedure for retraction (withdrawal) of an article is carried out after an investigation is carried out and a decision is made by the journal Editor-in-Chief based on the investigation results. Special experts from the journal Editorial Board may be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief to conduct the investigation, or invited external specialists may be involved.

2. The decision on the article retraction is formulated in the minutes of the journal Editorial Board meeting. The minutes include: the date of the meeting; the list of the Editorial Board members who participated in the meeting and made the decision; a description of the examination results; rationale of the decision; output data on the retracted article; information about the retraction initiator.

3. Information about the article retraction is placed in the “Retraction” section of the issue following the date of the decision. The information includes complete data about the article, the type of publication and the rationale for its retraction. If the decision was made to correct the article without retraction, this information is also published in the next issue of the journal in the “Correction” section.

4. On the journal’s website, in the content of the issue in which the article is published, and in the metadata of the article in HTML format, information about the article retraction and the reason for the retraction is placed. The article is marked “WITHDRAWN/RETRACTED” and the retraction date is indicated.

5. A brief extract from the minutes indicating the retraction date may also be posted on the journal’s website in the “Retraction” section, which includes information about all retracted articles.

6. After completion of the retraction procedure, information about the retraction must be sent to all Russian and foreign information resources in which the journal is indexed or located.

7. The withdrawn articles (metadata and full text) are sent to the Ethics Council of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers for inclusion in the Database of the retracted articles of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers.