1. General provisions
1.1. This guide sets standards of ethical behavior for the parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, publisher, including rules of decency, confidentiality, supervision of publications, and consideration of Possible conflicts of interest.
1.2 The editorial Board of the Journal "technosphere management" complies with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and does everything possible to prevent any violations of these standards. In this activity, they are guided by the provisions of Chapter 70 "Copyright" of The civil Code of the Russian Federation.

This guide is based on the recommendations and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers, and includes ethical standards for authors, reviewers, and editors.

2. Ethical standards for authors of publications
2.1. Standard access to the original research data and their storage. The author must submit the source materials (data) of the research at the request of the editorial Board and must be ready to provide public access to them. The author must keep this data for at least five years after publication for possible reproduction and verification.
2.2. The standard for originality (inadmissibility of plagiarism). When submitting a manuscript to a journal, the author (or authors) must ensure that it is their own original manuscript, and that it has never been published anywhere before and is not currently being prepared for publication. If the author (s) in the article used works or include in their article fragments from the works (quotes) of other persons, such use should be properly formalized by specifying the original source in the bibliographic list attached to the article. Plagiarism, as well as auto-plagiarism, in any form is unethical and unacceptable behavior of the author.
2.3. The standard of reliability of results of scientific research. Authors must provide reliable research results. Scientific results should be presented correctly and objectively. Obviously erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
2.4. The standard for semelincident publication. The author submits to the editorial Board a manuscript of an article that has not been published before and has not been submitted to the editorial Board of other journals. Submitting a manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is unethical and unacceptable. The same applies to the translation of the article into a foreign language.
2.5. The acknowledgement of sources. The author undertakes to correctly indicate in the bibliographic list the scientific and other sources that he used in the course of the research and that had a significant impact on the results of the research. 2.6. The authorship of the article. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, planning, execution, or interpretation of the described research. All persons who have made a significant contribution to the published work should be listed as co-authors. If a person has participated in a significant part of the project, they should be acknowledged, or they should be listed as having made a significant contribution to the study. The author undertakes to indicate all co-authors who meet these requirements and not to indicate co-authors who do not meet these requirements, as well as to ensure that the final version of the article and its submission for publication were approved by all co-authors.
2.7. standard for disclosure of conflicts of interest on the part of the author. All authors agree to submit the manuscript for publication and are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest - professional or financial - that may be interpreted as affecting the results of the evaluation of their manuscript. The conflict of interest should be indicated in the text of the article with the authors ' explanations on this issue. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed and must be indicated in the manuscript.
2.8. Standard error correction in published works. If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to immediately notify the editor of the journal or publisher and cooperate with the editor in order to publish a refutation or correction of the article. If the editorial Board finds out about an error from third parties, the author must immediately correct the error or provide evidence of its absence.

3. Ethical standards for reviewers
3.1. Standard of the reviewer's contribution to editorial decisions. The reviewer's expert assessment of the manuscript helps to make editorial decisions, and also helps the author to improve the manuscript. The decision to accept a manuscript for publication, return it to the author for revision, or reject it from publication is made by the editorial Board based on the results of the review.
3.2. Standard qualifications of the reviewer. The reviewer must have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript. The reviewer, who believes that he is not competent on the issues considered in the material, should refuse to review.
3.3. Standard of review terms. The reviewer must submit the review within the time period specified by the editorial Board. It is assumed that reviewers who accept manuscripts for review will be able to provide the results of their work no later than four weeks. If it is not possible to review the manuscript and prepare a review in a timely manner, the reviewer must notify that the submitted manuscript cannot be reviewed.
3.4. Standard for privacy by the reviewer. Confidential information or ideas gleaned by reviewers from the accepted manuscript are not subject to disclosure and use for personal purposes. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Works are not subject to demonstration and discussion with other persons, except for persons authorized by the chief editors of the journal.
3.5. The standard for review objective. Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers must clearly Express their opinion and support it with appropriate strict arguments and provide links to authoritative sources.
3.6. The acknowledgement of sources. Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript, and identify those fragments of the manuscript that do not contain references to primary sources. Reviewers should draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to the detection of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under review and any other published work known to reviewers. They should also inform the editor-in-chief of any doubts they have about the ethical acceptability of the research presented in the manuscript.
3.7. Disclosure of conflict of interest. The reviewer must refuse to review the manuscript if there are conflicts of interest (for example, due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work).

4. Ethical standards for editorial staff
4.1. Standard for making a decision to publish an article. The editors-in-chief of the journal Vestnik are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the editorial Board should be published or whether to refuse to publish them. They make a decision based on the results of verification of compliance with the design requirements and the results of peer review. Works are allowed solely on the basis of their scientific value. When deciding to publish a manuscript, they are also guided by the journal's policy and do not allow the publication of articles with signs of libel, insult, plagiarism or copyright infringement.
4.2. The standard of equality of all authors. The editorial Board evaluates only the intellectual content of the manuscript, regardless of race, nationality, origin, citizenship (citizenship), gender, occupation, place of work and residence of the author, as well as his political, philosophical, religious and other views.
4.3. The standard of confidentiality. The editor-in-chief must not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial Board consultants, and the publisher. In addition, editors should make every effort to ensure the anonymity of the review, i.e. they should not inform the authors of the names of the reviewers of the manuscript.
4.4. Standard for disclosure of conflicts of interest by the editorial Board. The editorial Board guarantees that the materials of the manuscript rejected from publication will not be used in the own works of the editorial Board members without the written consent of the author.
The editor-in-chief must require all authors to provide information about the existence of a conflict of interest and publish corrections if they are found after publication. If necessary, it can perform other actions, such as publishing a rebuttal or expressing concern.
4.5. Standard citation of the publication in which the work is published. Under no circumstances should the editorial Board force authors to cite certain works as a necessary condition for accepting the manuscript for publication. Any recommendations for citing papers should be based on their scientific significance and aim to improve the material presented. Members of the editorial Board can recommend sources to authors as part of the review procedure, but such recommendations cannot be reduced to a mandatory citation procedure.