Editorial Policy

Aims and Scope

The purpose of the open access scientific journal “Finno-Ugric World” is to inform the scientific community about the latest achievements of fundamental and applied research in the field of Finno-Ugric studies, to promote the preservation and development of languages, cultures, traditions of the Finno-Ugric peoples, to expand scientific and cultural ties between related peoples and socio-political consolidation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
To achieve the aims and scope, the Journal carries out the following activities:
– to introduce relevant scientific research and development for all interested readers;
to publish, present and disseminate latest information and best practices of Russian and foreign authors;
– cooperation with researchers, academic and research centers of the countries of residence of Finno-Ugric peoples, i.e. Russia, Hungary, Finland and Estonia;
– dissemination of the work of NGOs of Finno-Ugric peoples;
– increase of the publications of national authors, rating of Russian academic and research institutions and raise of level of national publications in the world academic and research community according to their citation index;
– strengthening of the popularity and credibility of the Journal, increase of the number of subscribers.
The target audience of the Journal is represented by academics of tertiary education institutions, research institutes, representatives of State Body and local self-government, NGOs, and representatives of culture and arts of the Finno-Ugric regions of the Russian Federation, Finland, Hungary and Estonia.
Original scientific articles written in Russian and English are considered for publication.

Publication in the journal is free for authors. The editors do not charge authors for the preparation, placement or printing of materials.

Peer Review Process

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the Finno-Ugric World undergo a mandatory double-blind review (the reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not receive information about the reviewers).

 Criteria for acceptance of a manuscript for publication

To be accepted for publication, an article should represent a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic under study, which can influence the existing knowledge in the subject area. The manuscript should be structured according to the journal’s requirements for the presentation of information in manuscripts of a particular genre. All structural components of the manuscript should fulfill their function and not be present solely as a structural component.

Pool of reviewers

Selection of reviewers is a critical part of the publication process, and we base our selection on a variety of factors, including professional expertise, reputation, recommendations, and previous interaction experience. We strive to attract reviewers who evaluate manuscripts thoroughly and reasonably, whether they are critical or benevolent.

Reviewer protocol

The primary purpose of a review is to provide editors with the information necessary to make a decision regarding the fate of a manuscript and to provide authors with recommendations for revision. A review recommending rejection of a manuscript is intended to explain to the authors the major deficiencies of their manuscript so that they not only understand the reasons for rejection, but also have the opportunity to revise the manuscript for publication in another journal.
Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they should not contradict the main points made in the comments to be forwarded to the authors.
We ask reviewers to answer the following questions to evaluate various aspects of the manuscript:
(1) Key findings: describe the gist of the study as you understood it.
(2) Credibility: Does the manuscript contain errors that may preclude publication? If yes, describe in detail.
(3) Originality and relevance: if the findings are not original, provide relevant references to previously published articles to confirm this. Are the findings of interest to subject matter experts?
(4) Data and methodology: assess the validity of the study design, the quality of the data, and the quality of the data presentation. We expect reviewers to evaluate all data, including supplementary and supporting materials. Are the data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to reproduce the results?
(5) Correctness of data analysis (including statistical analysis): include specific commentary on the applicability of statistical tools and the accuracy of the description of errors and probability values.
(6) Conclusions: to what extent are the conclusions and interpretation of the data reasonable, valid, and reliable?
(7) Recommendations for revision of the manuscript: list additional experiments or data that would strengthen the material in revision.
(8) References: does the introduction and discussion of results adequately reflect previous literature on the topic? Which references should be added or deleted? If the manuscript contains a Literature Review – how relevant is its inclusion. Is the Literature Review reduced to an abstract of sources? Does it lead readers to an understanding of the author’s main idea that he or she is developing in the study?
(9) Clarity and context: how clear and accessible is the content of each structural component of the manuscript? Are the abstract, introduction, and conclusion consistent with the content?
(10) Boundaries of competence: indicate if any part of the manuscript, data, or analysis is beyond your competence or was not fully evaluated by you.

The reviewer’s protocol does not necessarily follow the order listed, but is intended to reflect the reviewer’s train of thought. All statements should be substantiated and reasoned with facts and references, comments should address all aspects relevant to the manuscript that the reviewer feels qualified to comment on. Having answered the questions of the protocol, reviewers, as a rule, provide additional recommendations to the authors in free form. It is also possible to include a confidential opinion of the reviewer regarding the quality of the manuscript addressed to the editors.

Anonymity

We do not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers unless the reviewer himself or herself provides his or her details in comments to authors. To increase transparency in the review process, reviewers may sign their reports if they feel it is acceptable to do so. We have a similar policy for authors. We do not disclose authors’ identities to reviewers, but authors may choose to initially choose an open review format and not remove their details from manuscripts when they are submitted to the journal editorial office.

Editing reviewer reports

In accordance with our policy, we do not proofread reviewer reports; any comments addressed to authors are forwarded to them, regardless of the editorial board’s opinion of their content. In rare cases, we may edit a reviewer’s comment to tone down language that reveals confidential information about other matters or may be perceived as offensive by the authors. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause concern to the authors and are not about the manuscript but are aimed at the identity of the author; at the same time, we strongly encourage reviewers to clearly express their opinion of the paper. Authors should realize that criticism is not necessarily unfair just because it is stated harshly.

Open Access Policy

Finno-Ugric World is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. All the materials of the “Finno-Ugric World” journal are made available under a Creative Commons “Attribution” 4.0 license. Articles in this journal are available to everyone from the moment of publication, which ensures free open access to research results and contributes to the progress of science.

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal  “Finno-Ugric World”  is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.
For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.
The journal “Finno-Ugric World” content that will have the CrossMark logo is restricted to current and future journal content and is limited to specific publication types (see below).

Publication Types

Addendum – Publication item giving additional information regarding another publication item, mostly presenting additional results.
Case report – A detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient.
Clarification – A variety of Erratum. The article does not report errors, but clarifies the data of a previously published article.
Comment – Work consisting of a critical or explanatory note written to discuss, support, or dispute an article or other presentation previously published. It may take the form of an article, letter, editorial, etc. It appears in publications under a variety of names: comment, commentary, editorial comment, viewpoint, etc.
Conference proceedings – Published record of the papers delivered at or issued on the occasion of individual congresses, symposia, and meetings.
Correspondence – Letter to the editor or a reply to the letter.
Correction – An article describing the corrections made in an article previously published in the same journal. This type of publication is not a variant of Erratum.
Corrigendum – Article in which errors are reported that were made by authors in an earlier publication in the same journal.
Clinical Practice Guidelines – Text described recommended best practice in medicine.
Discussion – Argumentative communication, like papers in a discussion, but also perspectives, commentaries, etc.
Editorial – Work consisting of a statement of the opinions, beliefs, and policy of the editor or publisher of a journal, usually on current matters of medical or scientific significance.
Erratum – Article in which errors are reported that were made in an earlier publication in the same journal. Can be Erratum (publishing error) but also Corrigendum (author error).
Expression of Concern – A notification about the integrity of a published article that is typically written by an editor and should be labelled prominently in the item title. It is the responsibility of the editor to initiate appropriate investigative procedures, discover the outcome of the investigation, and notify readers of that outcome in a subsequent published item. The outcome may require the publication of a retraction notice.
Original Study Article – Complete report on original research.
Removal – Editorial notice of the removal of a previously published article. The text of the article is removed. The HTML pages and PDF pages of the article are completely removed and replaced by a single page with citation details and an explanation.
Retracted publication – The text of the article is retracted. The HTML pages are replaced by a single page with citation details and an explanation. The PDF pages remain with a watermark on every page to notify it is retracted.
Retraction of Publication – Editorial notice of the retraction of a previously published article.
Review article – Substantial overview of original research, usually with a comprehensive bibliography, generally also containing a table of contents.
Short Communication – Short report or announcement of research, usually claiming certain results, usually with a shorter publication time than other papers in the same publication. Appear under many names, such as Letter Papers, Preliminary notes, Notes, etc.
Short Review – Short or mini-review.
Withdrawal – Refutation of an article previously published in the same journal (in a situation where retraction cannot be performed).

Regulations on the Editorial Board

  1. General Provisions

1.1. These Regulations establish the procedures for the activities of the Editorial Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Editorial Board”) of the peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal Finno-Ugric World (hereinafter referred to as the “Journal”).
1.2. The Journal is founded and published by the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education National Research Mordovia State University (hereinafter referred to as the “Founder”).
1.3. The Editorial Board is a collegial advisory body established by the Founder to provide organizational, methodological, scientific, and technical support for the Journal. Its activities are carried out on a voluntary basis.
1.4. The Editorial Board is composed of distinguished specialists in the relevant field, representing various scientific, educational, and research institutions in the Russian Federation and abroad.
1.5. The size and composition of the Editorial Board are approved by the Founder. The Editorial Board includes the Chairperson (Editor-in-Chief), Co-Chairpersons (Deputy Editors-in-Chief), the Executive Secretary, and other members. Membership is confirmed in writing. Representatives of the Founder may also join the Editorial Board upon their written consent. The list of Editorial Board members is published on one of the title pages of the Journal and on its official website.
1.6. The Editorial Board is chaired by the Editor-in-Chief.
1.7. These Regulations on the Editorial Board are approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.

  1. Competence of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board is responsible for the following:

  • Defining and developing the editorial policy of the Journal;
  • Developing and implementing strategies to enhance the scientific authority of the Journal and expand its readership;
  • Formulating recommendations on the scope of the Journal;
  • Identifying and recruiting new authors based on the Journal’s scope;
  • Participating in the review process for articles submitted to the Journal;
  • Contributing to the promotion of the Journal, including through the use of information technology and social media;
  • Proposing improvements to the publication’s quality and the editorial and publishing processes.
  1. Meetings of the Editorial Board

3.1 Meetings of the Editorial Board are convened by the Editor-in-Chief and held as necessary, including via video conference, in accordance with the procedure established by the Chairperson.
3.2 A meeting of the Editorial Board is considered valid if more than half of its members are present.
3.3 The agenda for the Editorial Board meetings is determined by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. The minutes of the meetings are prepared by the Executive Secretary, kept by the Editorial Board for five years, and then transferred to the archive for permanent storage.
3.4 The meetings will address matters within the Editorial Board’s competence. Board members may request that additional topics be included in the agenda, either before or during the meeting.
3.5 Authors and other interested parties may be invited to attend meetings of the Editorial Board.
3.6 Decisions of the Editorial Board are made by a simple majority vote of the members present at the meeting and are subject to approval by the Editor-in-Chief. In the event of a tie vote, the presiding officer’s vote is decisive. The decisions of the Editorial Board are advisory in nature, and the Editor-in-Chief is not obligated to justify any refusal to approve them.
3.7 Only members of the Editorial Board have the right to vote at meetings. Invited guests do not participate in the voting process.
3.8 The Chairperson is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Board’s decisions.

  1. Members of the Editorial Board

4.1 Members of the Editorial Board are required to:

  • Participate in meetings and contribute to the development of draft decisions;
  • Support the Journal by liaising with government, public, scientific, and other organizations;
  • Ensure the quality and thematic direction of the Journal’s content.

4.2 Members of the Editorial Board have the right to:

  • Receive the necessary information from the Editorial Board to carry out its tasks effectively;
  • Participate in expert groups focused on the Journal’s scope;
  • Review materials proposed for publication, participate in discussions about them, and share their opinions.

Ethics of Scientific Publications

Key Responsibilities of the Publisher

(1) Preservation of the Scientific Archive: The publisher plays a crucial role in supporting the work of editors and reviewers to maintain the integrity of the journal’s scientific archive. This includes providing resources, ensuring adherence to best practices in publishing, and upholding editorial standards.
(2) Protection of Editorial Independence: The publisher commits to preventing any external influence (financial or otherwise) on editorial decisions.

Key Responsibilities of Editors

(1) Decision-Making on Publication: The editor-in-chief holds full responsibility for deciding on the publication of articles, based on their significance and scientific value to researchers and readers.
(2) Peer Review Process: Editors ensure a fair, objective, and timely review process, selecting reviewers with appropriate expertise and promoting inclusivity and diversity.
(3) Fairness and Transparency: Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit, with editorial policies transparently communicated.
(4) Confidentiality: Editors protect the confidentiality of all materials submitted to the journal and communications with reviewers.
(5) Conflict of Interest: Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed and considered when making editorial decisions.

Key Responsibilities of Reviewers

(1) Assisting Editorial Decisions: Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help editors make decisions and assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
(2) Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential and must not be shared with third parties.
(3) Ethical Standards and Independence: Reviewers must evaluate submissions objectively, avoiding personal bias or conflicts of interest.

Key Responsibilities of Authors

(1) Accountability and Standards: Authors must accurately present their research, providing detailed and reliable data that can be reproduced.
(2) Data Access and Retention: Authors should provide data upon request and ensure it is securely stored for verification.
(3) Originality and Source Attribution: Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their work, properly citing prior research, and avoiding plagiarism. Manuscripts must not duplicate previous publications, except for conference abstracts or theses.
(4) Authorship Criteria: Authorship is limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
(5) Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Manuscripts must include disclosures of any relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest.
(6) Notification of Errors: If a significant error or inaccuracy is found in a published work, authors must promptly notify the editor and cooperate to correct or retract the article.

Principles of Academic Freedom and Responsibility

Researchers are entitled to freely conduct research and share their findings without censorship, while adhering to principles of intellectual honesty and avoiding harm to individuals, society, or the environment.

Positive and Negative Impact of Research

Research must respect the dignity and rights of subjects and communities, as well as material and intangible heritage, natural resources, and the environment. Indirect harm, such as stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of findings, must be considered.

Ethical Review for Human Studies

Studies involving human participants require informed consent and ethical committee approval. Statements confirming adherence to ethical standards must be included in the manuscript.

Editorial Independence

The journal ensures editorial decisions are based solely on scientific criteria, free from commercial or external influences. This includes decisions on peer review, acceptance, rejection, and publication.

Appeal Policy

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request within one month of receiving the decision. Appeals are considered only for manuscripts that underwent peer review. Appeals must include detailed responses to editorial and reviewer comments, supported by evidence.

Authorship

Each author must contribute significantly to the work’s conception, execution, or interpretation. The corresponding author ensures all co-authors have approved the manuscript and takes responsibility for communications with the journal.

Acknowledgment of Contributions

The journal supports transparency by publishing statements detailing each author’s contribution using the CRediT taxonomy.

Author Identification

Authors are required to provide an ORCID identifier to enhance transparency in the publication process.

Policy on the Use of Generative AI

With the development of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies increasingly used by authors in creating scientific manuscripts, the journal “Finno-Ugric World“ has established a policy to regulate their use. The journal will closely monitor advancements in this field and revise its policy as necessary.

Policy for Authors

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools in Scientific Writing

This policy applies exclusively to the writing process and does not cover the use of AI for data analysis or deriving scientific conclusions during research.

Purpose of AI Use

Authors may use generative AI and AI tools solely to enhance the readability and linguistic quality of their manuscripts. Such tools must be used under human supervision, with the output carefully reviewed and edited by the authors. It is important to recognize that AI can generate text that appears authoritative but may contain inaccuracies, incomplete information, or biases.

Responsibility and Disclosure

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their work. The use of AI tools must be disclosed in the manuscript, and this disclosure will be included in the published article to ensure transparency and build trust among all participants in the publication process.

Exclusion of AI as an Author

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship implies responsibility and the fulfillment of tasks that only humans can perform. Authors must ensure their work is original, complies with ethical standards, and does not infringe on the rights of third parties.

Use of AI in Illustrations and Graphic Content

Prohibition on AI-Generated or Altered Images

The use of generative AI or AI tools to create, alter, or process images in manuscripts is prohibited. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, and color balance are permitted only if they do not distort the presented data.

Exception

If the use of AI is part of the research methodology (e.g., biomedical imaging), it must be thoroughly described in the “Methods” section, including the name and specifications of the AI tool used.

Policy for Reviewers

Confidentiality and Use of AI Tools

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents, and uploading them or any parts of them to AI tools is prohibited, as it may breach author confidentiality and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to review comments, which may contain sensitive information about the manuscript and its authors.

The use of generative AI to assist in scientific reviewing is not permitted, as the peer review process requires critical thinking and independent evaluation, which are beyond AI’s capabilities. Reviewers are fully responsible for the content of their reviews.

The journal allows the use of secure AI technologies for tasks such as checking manuscript completeness, plagiarism, and finding suitable reviewers, provided confidentiality standards are upheld.

Policy for Editors

All manuscripts submitted for consideration must remain confidential. Uploading them or any parts of them to AI tools is prohibited, as this may violate the authors’ rights and confidentiality. Similarly, the use of generative AI to assist in making editorial decisions is not allowed.

Manuscript evaluation requires critical thinking and an objective approach, which can only be provided by human editors. Editors are fully responsible for the editorial process, final decisions regarding manuscripts, and communicating those decisions to authors.

Policies for Authors

AUTHORSHIP

Authorship credit is based on a substantial intellectual contribution to one or more of the following research stages:

  • research design and conception;
  • data collection and treatment;
  • analysis and interpretation of the results;
  • drafting and finalizing of the manuscript.

In submitting a manuscript to the Journal, the authors confirm their authorship and that all listed co-authors approve of the manuscript’s content and agree with the License Agreement.
For a paper having multiple authorship, the order of authorship is determined by the co-authors.
Co-authors bear full responsibility for all aspects of the work performed, not only for those aspects that were performed by them.
All contributors to the research presented in a publication, such as financial sponsors, organization leaders and individuals, who do not merit authorship, should be named in the Acknowledgments section.
The presentation by the author(s) of false or fraudulent information in any documents accompanying the manuscript is considered as a basis for its rejection, regardless of the outcome of peer review.

Using CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) for Authorship Attribution

CRediT (“Contributor Roles Taxonomy”, https://credit.niso.org/) is a taxonomy used to attribute authorship in scientific research. The taxonomy consists of 14 specific roles to represent the variety of contributions that may apply within a research and writing process. In practice, CRediT is a controlled vocabulary for specific author contributions. When CRediT is applied to a work, the work will have an authorship list based upon these contributor roles.

Correction and Retraction of Articles by Authors Post-Publication

The journal “Finno-Ugric World” acknowledges the importance of maintaining the integrity and completeness of the scientific archive for the benefit of the scientific community and places great emphasis on preserving trust in the authority of its published articles. Published articles should remain accurate and unaltered except in the cases outlined below. However, circumstances may arise where an article needs to be corrected, withdrawn, or even retracted.

The editorial board is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is guided by editorial policies and bound by legal requirements, such as laws on defamation, copyright infringement, and privacy issues. Thus, the integrity of the scientific archive as a permanent record of published scientific research is of paramount importance. If corrections to the scientific archive are necessary, authors and other stakeholders involved in a specific case are notified, and a record of the case review and the decision is made available on the article’s page to ensure transparency for the scientific community.

The journal’s policy on correcting the scientific archive is reviewed and updated as standards evolve and best practices emerge.

Authors Identifying Errors in Their Published Articles

Authors who identify an error in their published article should contact the journal as soon as possible using the contact information provided on the journal’s website.

In most cases, the corresponding author is responsible for reporting errors to the journal. The editor or a designated representative (e.g., a member of the editorial team with relevant expertise) reviews the correction proposal along with any supporting data or information. The correction may be sent for additional peer review. The editor determines the appropriate mechanism for correcting the article and may consult the journal’s editorial board and ASEP Ethics Council on matters of research integrity and publication ethics before making a final decision.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum is published when an error or omission needs correction but does not affect the integrity or conclusions of the article. The corrigendum must be prepared by the authors, with all authors agreeing to its publication. The corrigendum will be linked to the article it corrects and made available on the article’s page on the journal’s website.

In rare cases, if the publisher is responsible for an error introduced during publication, the journal will issue an erratum. The erratum will also be linked to the corrected article and published on its page on the journal’s website.

Withdrawal of Accepted Manuscripts

A manuscript in the “accepted for publication” status (an early version of the article that has been accepted but not yet formally published) may be withdrawn prior to final publication if:

  1. Errors are discovered in the manuscript.
  2. The manuscript duplicates previously published work.
  3. The editor determines that the authors violated editorial policies (e.g., multiple submissions, false authorship claims, plagiarism, or data fraud).
  4. The early version was published in error by the editor or during production.

When articles in the “accepted for publication” status are withdrawn, their content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with an HTML page and PDF stating that the article has been withdrawn in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policy, with a link to this policy.

Retraction of Published Articles

Articles may be retracted to address errors that affect the reliability of the results when such errors are too significant to issue an erratum or due to violations of the journal’s policies.
The journal editors or their designated representatives, in consultation with the ASEP Ethics Council regarding research integrity and publication ethics, may consider retraction if:

  1. There is evidence that results are unreliable due to significant error (e.g., miscalculations or experimental errors) or misconduct (e.g., data manipulation or fabrication).
  2. The article contains plagiarism.
  3. The results were previously published in another outlet, and proper attribution, notification, or permission was not provided (duplicate publication).
  4. The material or data was published without proper authorization.
  5. Copyright infringement or other legal issues (e.g., defamation or privacy violations) are identified.
  6. The research violates ethical standards for studies involving humans or animals or contravenes the journal’s policies on research ethics.
  7. There is evidence of compromised peer review or manipulation of the editorial process.
  8. Authorship fraud (e.g., purchased authorship) or citation manipulation is discovered.
  9. There is evidence of citation manipulation.
  10. Authors failed to disclose a significant conflict of interest that could have substantially influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of editors and/or reviewers.

Permission for Third-Party Material Use

The journal’s policy on obtaining permissions for using third-party material includes the following key provisions:

(1) Mandatory Permissions
Any reproduction of substantial parts of copyrighted works requires formal permission from the copyright holder. This applies not only to texts, but also to all visual materials, such as: illustrations, diagrams, tables, photographs, any other materials that were previously published.

(2) The Procedure for Obtaining Permissions
To acquire permission to use material published by another publisher, authors should:

  • Identify the copyright holder of the specific material the author intends to use.
  • Contact the copyright holder (e.g. the publisher or the author) to obtain formal written permission. This can be done through specialized platforms that provide licensing rights or by making a personal request to the publisher.
  • Ensure that the permission covers the use of the material in the context of publication in a scientific article, specifying the form of use, such as publication in a scientific journal or online repository.

(3) Documentation of Permissions
Once permission has been received from the copyright holder, it is important to:

  • Include written confirmation in the package of documents attached to the manuscript submitted to the journal.
  • Ensure that all necessary references and attributions in the text of the article or under illustrations and tables are correctly formatted in accordance with the requirements of the copyright holder.(4) Author Responsibility
    Authors are responsible for ensuring:

    • Providing proof of permission to use any copyrighted material in their article.
    • Cite the source and ensure that you comply with the license terms, if applicable (e.g., for Creative Commons open licenses).

    (5) Exceptions
    No permission is required for:

    1. Public Domain: materials that are not protected by copyright because they are in the public domain.
    2. Open Licenses: materials published under Creative Commons licenses may be used as long as the terms of the license are followed, such as attribution, but with restrictions on commercial use or modification.
      Adherence to this policy is important to ensure the legal integrity of the published work and to protect the rights of all contributors. Authors should exercise caution when using third-party materials to avoid possible copyright infringement, as this may result in the refusal to publish or retraction of the article if violations are found.

    Access to Data

    The editors of the journal “Finno-Ugric World” are committed to maintaining the transparency and reproducibility of scientific research. This policy applies to data that is not included directly in the text of the manuscript, but may be required by reviewers and other researchers to check the reliability and transparency of the conclusions presented in the article.

    Authors’ Responsibilities
    Authors should be prepared to provide any additional data that confirms the results of the study if requested by the editors or reviewers during the review process. Such data may include:
    1. Raw data (e.g., observational or experimental data).
    2. Data processing methods, scripts, and algorithms.
    3. Materials and experimental protocols that facilitate reproducing the results.
    4. Any intermediate stages of analysis that allow the reliability of the final results to be verified.
    Formats and Access

    Data provided by authors upon request should be available in formats convenient for reuse (e.g. CSV, Excel, or text formats for data, and PDF or protocols for methods and descriptions). Data can be:
    1. Transferred to reviewers directly through the journal platform, while maintaining confidentiality.
    2. Stored in publicly accessible data repositories, e.g. Zenodo, Mendeley Data, with the ability to temporarily restrict access until the article is published.

    Role of Reviewers
    Reviewers have the right to request additional data from authors to more thoroughly check the conclusions presented in the article. These requests must be justified and relate only to those data that directly affect the verification of the reliability of the study.
    Confidentiality

    In case of providing data to reviewers at the peer review stage, the editorial board undertakes to maintain confidentiality. Additional data will be available exclusively to reviewers and the editorial team, and will not be published without the permission of the authors.

    Publication of Data
    After the review is completed and the article is accepted for publication, authors are encouraged to publish additional data in publicly available repositories with open access in order to maintain transparency and promote further use of data in scientific research. In this case, all links to repositories and data in the article must be indicated.

    Refusal to Provide Data
    If the authors refuse to provide additional data at the reasonable request of the reviewers, the editors reserve the right to suspend the review process or refuse publication, taking into account the importance of the data for verifying scientific conclusions.

    Control and Responsibility
    The editorial board reserve the right to request and verify the availability of data from the authors in case of justified complaints about the lack of transparency of the results after publication. In cases of violation of the principles of openness and transparency, the editors may initiate a process of investigation and revision of the publication. The editors of the journal highly value the contribution of authors to the openness of science and support efforts aimed at ensuring the reuse of data. This policy is intended to ensure compliance with high standards of scientific ethics, promoting transparency and reproducibility of research.

Policy of Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

To ensure transparency and allow readers to assess potential biases, the journal “Finno-Ugric World” requires authors to declare any financial and/or non-financial interests related to the research described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a conflict-of-interest statement on behalf of all authors of the article.
A conflict of interest is defined as any financial or non-financial interest that could directly undermine or be perceived as undermining the objectivity, integrity, and value of the publication, potentially influencing the authors’ judgment and actions regarding the objective presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data.

Financial Conflicts of Interest

  1. Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) from organizations that may gain or lose financially from the publication. Any role played by the funding organization in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation must be disclosed.
  2. Employment: Recent (during the period of the research), current, or anticipated employment in any organization that may gain or lose financially from the publication.
  3. Personal Financial Interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially from the publication; consulting fees or other remuneration (including payments for participation in symposia) from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications (granted or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions, whose value may be affected by the publication. For patents and applications, the following details should be disclosed: applicant (author or institution), name of the inventor(s), application number, application status, and the specific aspect of the manuscript covered by the patent application.

Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest

Non-financial conflicts of interest may take various forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations or individuals. Authors and reviewers must disclose any unpaid roles or relationships that could influence the publication process. Examples of non-financial conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

  1. Unpaid membership in a governmental or non-governmental organization.
  2. Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization.
  3. Unpaid advisory roles in commercial organizations.
  4. Consulting activities for a company.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest during the manuscript submission process through the submission system. The corresponding author is required to provide the declaration on behalf of all authors. In cases of double-anonymous review, reviewers will receive a minimal statement indicating the presence of financial or non-financial interests to avoid revealing the authors’ identities.
Regardless of the review model, all authors must include a declaration at the end of the published article about the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, using one of the following standard statements:

  • “The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: …”
  • “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
  • “The authors declare that confidentiality agreements prevent disclosure of conflicts of interest related to this work”.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

The journal “Finno-Ugric World” encourages reviewers to exclude themselves from the review process if a significant conflict of interest exists. Reviewers must inform editors of any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as significant. Editors will consider these disclosures when evaluating reviewer recommendations.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Articles by members of the Editorial Board submitted to the Journal are reviewed on general grounds.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Publication Fee and Edition Business Model

open access

“Finno-Ugric World” is peer-reviewed open access journal. It means:

  1. Content created by scientists;
  2. Publication is free for all authors; authors don’t pay for reviewing, editing, translating, proof-reading, layout design;
  3. “Medicine and Biotechnology” doesn’t pay author’s fee / royalties;
  4. The publication of the journal is financed by the founding organization – National Research Mordovia State University;
  5. Access to all articles in the electronic version of the journal is free for all readers after the publication of issues.

The Editorial Board does not provide any paid or agency services. Editorial Board does not work with intermediaries. Articles are accepted only directly from their authors.  No fast track publication service is available.  Authors don’t pay for reviewing, editing, translating, proof-reading, layout design.

Article Retraction Policy

Purpose of Retraction

The goal of retraction is to inform readers about materials containing significant errors or unreliable data that cannot be trusted. Data unreliability may arise from honest mistakes or deliberate misconduct, such as duplicate publications, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest that could distort data interpretation or recommendations for use. Retraction also serves to uphold scientific integrity by warning other researchers and readers against using the results of the retracted article in subsequent studies. Its primary function is to maintain the reliability of scientific research by removing misleading or inaccurate data from circulation. Retraction thus contributes to upholding high scientific standards and trust in published research, ensuring that only reliable and accurate data remain within the scientific community.

The editorial board of the journal “Finno-Ugric World“, following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the “Rules for Retraction” of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), adheres to the following retraction policy.

Grounds for Retraction

Articles may be retracted due to violations of scientific publishing ethics, including:

  1. Incorrect and/or unattributed borrowing of the information (plagiarism);
  2. Duplicate publication in multiple outlets;
  3. Self-plagiarism;
  4. Falsification or fabrication of data (e.g., manipulation of experimental results);
  5. Identification of significant errors in the publication (e.g., incorrect interpretation of research findings), undermining its scientific value;
  6. Misrepresentation of authorship (including individuals who do not meet authorship criteria);
  7. Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  8. Republishing an article without the author’s consent;
  9. Other violations of publication ethics.

A retraction confirms that the article contains violations. While authors may disagree with the decision, the journal retains the right to proceed with the retraction process. Articles may be retracted by the authors or by the journal’s editorial board. Retraction is not intended as a tool to discredit authors but as a mechanism to ensure the transparency and integrity of scientific communication and knowledge dissemination.
When a retraction decision is made based on an expert review, triggered by third-party information or an author’s request, the authors are formally notified. Authors (or the corresponding author in case of collective authorship) must review and acknowledge the reasoning for retraction. If authors refuse to retract, the editorial board reserves the right to proceed without their consent, as it bears responsibility for the journal’s content and data accuracy.

Retraction Procedure

The retraction process is initiated by the editor-in-chief based on expert review and the authors’ responses to specific concerns. Authors either agree to the retraction or present convincing arguments against it. The editorial board makes the final decision on retraction.

  • Author-Initiated Retraction: Authors submit a written request to the editorial board explaining the reasons (e.g., errors in the presented data or unauthorized use of third-party information). If the board agrees to the retraction, it is implemented in line with COPE guidelines and ASEP ethical standards. If the board does not respond, authors may appeal to the ASEP Ethics Council.
  • Third-Party-Initiated Retraction: The editorial board conducts an expert review based on third-party claims and notifies the authors of its decision. If ignored, the editorial board may proceed independently.

Retraction decisions are documented in an editorial board meeting protocol. The retraction statement includes:

  1. Author(s)’ name(s), article title, journal name, publication details, and DOI;
  2. The party initiating the retraction;
  3. Grounds for retraction (e.g., plagiarism, duplication, with references to the original source);
  4. Date of decision and link to the article metadata page on the journal’s website, containing the retraction notice and the full text marked as “RETRACTED.”

In exceptional cases, articles may need to be removed entirely because of defamatory content or threats to public health. Metadata (title and authors) will be retained, with an explanation of why the article was removed.

The editor-in-chief sends the retraction protocol to:

  1. National Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases. While article information remains in the system, its indexing in databases like RSCI is removed, and the retraction note is appended.
  2. ASEP’s Ethics Council for inclusion in the Retraction Database.
  3. Relevant dissertation councils if the article is referenced in academic defenses.

Retraction information is also published as a separate file on the journal’s website.

Based on the expert review, the editorial board may impose a publication ban on the author(s) for a specific period.

Appeals and Complaints

If the author disagrees with the decision of the Editors, the author has the right to appeal once to the Editorial Board’s e-mail address. All appeals are considered by the Editors, the term for considering the appeal is several weeks.

In case of disagreement of the author with the decision of the Editors regarding his appeal, the Editorial Board does not re-considerate this article.

Digital archiving policy

Issues of the journal are deposited in the following digital archives

  • The full issues of the journal are stored on the journal’s website in the PDF / A format and are deposited as a legal deposit copy to the Russian State Library (rsl.ru)
  • The full issues of the journal are stored on the RCSI Journals Platform
  • Files of journal articles are saved on the site in PDF format.
  • Files of journal articles are deposited with metadata to the Scientific Electronic Library / Russian Scientific Citation Index (РИНЦ) (e-library.ru)
  • Files of journal articles are deposited along with metadata in the Cyberleninkа digital library (cyberleninka.ru)

Derivation and Plagiarism

The journal “Finno-Ugric World” does not publish plagiarism in any forms – including works containing plagiarism of text, plagiarism of ideas and plagiarism of data.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Finno-Ugric World” considers the following to be the forms plagiarism:

  • use (word for word citing) of any materials in any value without indicating the source;
  • use of images, pictures, photographs, tables, diagrams, schemes or any other forms of graphical information presentation without indicating the source;
  • use of images, pictures, photographs, tables, diagrams, schemes or any other forms of graphical information presentation published in scientific and popular issues without approving by copyright holder;
  • use of the materials without written permission, the authors or copyright holders of which don’t permit use of their materials without special approvement.

The Editorial Board of the journal “Finno-Ugric World” considers the following to be the forms of incorrect borrowing:

  • absence of graphical highlighting of literal text citation when there are references to the source;
  • incorrect references (incomplete bibliographic description of the sources, which prevents their identification;
  • reference not to the first source of the borrowed text without clear indication of this fact (mistake in primary source determination);
  • absence of references from the text to the sources enumerated in the list below the article.

Only original works are acceptable for publication in journal. The journal “Finno-Ugric World” does not allow any forms of plagiarism.

If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

The journal is using “Antiplagiatˮ software for plagiarism detection in all Russian-language manuscripts.

In the case of the discovery of multiple incidents of content matching, the editorial staff acts in accordance with the rules of COPE, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts-new/what-do-if-you-suspect-plagiarism.

Policy on Preprint and Postprint Deposition

The editorial board of the “Finno-Ugric World” allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.

Preprints

The editorial board of the “Finno-Ugric World”  encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as ‘a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.’

A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor’s decision to publish it in the “Finno-Ugric World” .

The author must notify the editorial board of the “Finno-Ugric World”  about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.

It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal’s website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.

Do not delete the preprint text.

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

The editorial board of the “Finno-Ugric World”  allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.

This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
– personal website or blog;
– institutional repository;
– disciplinary repository;
– direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Final Versions of Manuscripts

The editorial board of the “Finno-Ugric World”  allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.
This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:
–   personal website or blog;
–   institutional repository;
–   disciplinary repository;
–   direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.
Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.
During the submission process, the author must confirm that the article has not been published and or accepted for publication in any other journal. When citing articles published in the journal “Finno-Ugric World”, the publisher requests the authors to provide a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Articles, which have been previously posted by the author on personal and or public websites that have no relationship to any other publishers, are allowed to be submitted to the journal.

Considering appeals from citizens

1.1 Appeals (complaints, proposals, and statements) in Russian and English are accepted from citizens in the correspondence department of the founder – National Research Mordovia State University and the Journal electronic editorial office.

Citizens can deliver their appeals personally, send by Russian mail, e-mail, fax or electronically via the official website of the Journal.

1.2 The rules for considering appeals of citizens:

– In accordance with the Federal Law of 02.05.2006 № 59-FZ “On the Order of Considering Appeals of Citizens of the Russian Federation”, appeals are registered within three days. Appeals are considered within 30 days from the date of registration.
– Appeals are not considered in the following situations:
1) if the appeal does not contain the surname, first name and patronymic (the last one – if available) of the citizen, who sent it, and the postal address/electronic mail (e-mail) address to which the answer should be sent;
2) in the appeal, there is appealed a court decision (the appeal is returned to the citizen with explanation of the procedure for appealing this court decision);
3) the appeal contains profane terms or insulting expressions, threats to life, health and property of the official, and members of his/her family;
4) if the text of the written appeal cannot be read;
5) if a written or electronic appeal of a citizen contains a question to which he/she has been repeatedly given written answers on the on the subject matter in the question in connection with previous sent appeals, and in the appeal, there are no new arguments or circumstances;
6) if the answer on the on the subject matter in the question put in the appeal cannot be given without disclosure of information constituting state or other secrets protected by the federal law.

The answer to the applicant is sent to the address (electronic or postal) specified in the appeal.

When considering the appeal it is forbidden to disclose the information contained in the appeal, and information concerning the citizen private life without his/her consent. Information on the personal data of applicants is stored and processed in compliance with the requirements of the Russian legislation on personal data.

1.3 Considering complaints, appeals, claims and the results of the decisions made become an essential part of the overall (integral) evaluation of the satisfaction of consumers and other parties interested in the activities of the Journal.
The purpose of considering appeals is to eliminate conflicts and increase customer satisfaction with the quality of services provided.

Main tasks:
– recording consumer appeals;
– identifying and analyzing the reasons leading to customer dissatisfaction with the quality of services;
– carrying out necessary measures to eliminate the conflict and reasons of consumer dissatisfaction with the services provided;
– informing consumers about the measures taken.

1.4 The received appeals are stored according to the nomenclature of affairs of the editorial office of scientific journals.

Advertising guidelines

Advertisers do not influence the editorial and advertising policies of the Editorial Board.

All advertising materials are reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board meeting. The Editorial Board may consider appropriate to make efforts reducing the review period, but without compromising on the quality of the review. If necessary, the Editorial Board may require additional reference material.

All advertisements must clearly identify the advertiser and the proposed product or service.

All advertising publications received by the Editorial Board must comply with the current legislation of the Russian Federation, including Federal Law No. 38-FZ of March 13, 2006 “On Advertising” and other norms of the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

The international nonproprietary name (INN) of each active substance must be identified in advertising and informational materials. In editorial materials, you should use the trade name in parentheses in combination with the INN immediately after the first mention once in the abstract and once in the text of the manuscript.

Commercial advertisements are not placed next to any editorial material that discusses the advertised product, or to any articles that reports on the study of the advertised product, and they should not contain references to the article in the same issue, where they are published. The design of advertisements differs from the design of editorial materials; readers must clearly identify advertisement and editorial material.

Advertisers are fully responsible for all information contained in advertising and informational materials published in the journal and its accuracy. Advertiser agrees to indemnify any losses that the publisher may meet due to the publication of advertising information, including claims or actions for libel, breach of confidentiality, breach of copyright or literary piracy.

Graphic Abstract

This is a single, clear visual representation of the main conclusions of an article in the form of a figure specifically designed for this purpose, which provides the reader with an overview of the article’s content.
The graphic abstract will appear in the lists of online search results, on the online page of the journal article, but will not appear in the PDF of the article or in printed form. It will draw attention to the article when posted on social media, blogs, press releases, etc.
The graphic abstract is a single image file in .jpeg, .jpg, .tiff or .png format. The resolution is 300 dpi. The figure may contain diagrams, graphs, drawings, charts, infographics, presentation elements, etc. Please do not include in the graphic abstract information about the authors, the title of the article and the words “graphic abstract”.
When compiling graphic abstracts it is recommended to stick to the following rules: avoid excessive explanatory text (the abstract should reflect the main results of the work, not duplicate it); avoid small graphic details. For ease of viewing, the graphic abstract should have a clear beginning and end. It is preferably to “read” it from top to bottom or from left to right.
The graphic abstract should be original, unique, not borrowed, simple but informative.
Examples of graphical abstracts can be seen here, here and here.
Graphic abstracts should be created by the author in any program that allows to create graphic images. The editors recommend that the authors consider the following tools for data visualisation and iconography creation:

  • Mind the graph – a program for creating a graphical abstract for a scientific presentation;
  • Piktochart – a web-based tool for creating simple graphics;
  • Easel.ly – an online service suitable for visualising ideas and stories;
  • Infogr.am – an online tool to create tables based on real data;
  • Visual.ly – a free tool that integrates with social media.

A video abstract is a short video overview of a research article, a 3-5 minute trailer. Video abstract creators can choose from a wide range of options to visualize their stories: from simple whiteboard drawings to screen recordings, video clips, slide shows, and “talking heads”.
Its purpose is to quickly identify the purpose and results of a given study.
A video abstract can be used to describe dynamic phenomena that are too complex or unusual to be described by the text and images in the article.
Like a graphic abstract, it is not intended to replace the original research article, but rather to attract attention to it and expand its readership.