The Journal mission – to unite scientists and practitioners conducting research on topical issues of deviant behavior.

The challenge facing the Journal - to disseminate scientific achievements, integrate scientific research in the field of deviant behavior.

“Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior” – a periodical electronic international peer-reviewed scientific publication in the field of interdisciplinary research into deviant behavior.

Subject area of the journal:

- national, cultural, ethnic and other forms of deviant behavior;

- biological, social and psychological reasons for deviant behavior;

- modeling the population's exposure to various types and forms of deviations, assessing their distribution among social groups and communities;

- ideological, socio-pedagogical, psychological mechanisms of deviant behavior;

- legal means of counteracting deviant behavior.

The Journal goals:

- to promote scientific exchange and cooperation between Russian and foreign specialists in the field of deviant behavior;

- to acquaint readership with the latest trends and theories in the field of deviant behavior, developed and applied as in Russia and foreign countries;

- to publish the results of original scientific research on a wide range of topical issues of deviant behavior on an interdisciplinary nature, relating to psychology, pedagogy, law, sociology, medicine;

- support for the young scientist’s generation.

The Journal themes.

The “Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior” publishes the results of original fundamental and applied scientific researches on deviant behavior themes.

Language and geography of the journal.

The main language of the journal is Russian. Metadata articles are published in Russian and English. The geography of the journal's authors includes both Russian and foreign authors. Articles by foreign authors are published in English, which allows expanding the geography of readers and strengthening the integration processes in the world scientific community.

Open Access Policy

"Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediately 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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

The Journal Sections and columns:

- history of deviant behavior;

- modern deviant behavior: theories and concepts;

- methodology for studying of deviant behavior;

- anthropology of deviant behavior;

- criminological studies of deviant behavior;

 - Psychological research of deviant behavior;

- Sociological research of deviant behavior;

- Pedagogical research and prevention of deviant behavior;

- Legal counteraction to deviant behavior.

- Psychological correction of deviant behavior.

- Pedagogical prevention of deviant behavior.

- reviews and reviews of scientific deviantological publications;
- reports on scientific events.

The journal publishes empirical, review (theoretical) and applied research in the field of deviant behavior.

The declared thematic headings of the journal do not limit the authors in choosing the topic of publication, since in the presence of interesting, relevant material, the headings can be expanded.

Instructions for authors

Before preparing and submitting an article for publication, the editors of the journal recommend that authors familiarize themselves with the content of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications (see the section "Ethics of Scientific Publications"), which the editors adhere to.

Contents Instructions for Authors

Open Access Policy

Terms of publication of the article

Rules for the design of articles

Technical requirements for articles

Article Template

Recommendations for writing an article

Open Access Policy

The “Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior”is an open access publication. All articles are freely available to readers immediately after publication.

Our open access policy is in line with the Budapest Open Access Initiative - this means that articles are posted on the Internet, and any user is allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, link to the full text of these articles, index them, transmit as data for use in software or use for any other lawful purposes without financial, legal or technical obstacles other than those that may arise when accessing the Internet.

For more information, please see the BOAI statement.

The journal provides direct open access to its content, based on the following principle: free open access to research results increases the global exchange of knowledge.

Terms of publication of the article

• The journal publishes current, original, objective and substantiated scientific materials, which were sent to print for the first time, free of charge and without payment of an author's fee. The journal does not publish journalistic, popular and educational texts, advertisements and other non-core materials.

• The manuscript must comply with the Requirements for Articles.

• Articles are accepted in Russian and / or English. Materials for publication in English are submitted by foreign authors without translation in any part of them into Russian.

Rules for the design of articles

Technical requirements for articles:

- the volume of articles is 40-45 thousand characters of the typewritten text (standard page - 1800 characters with spaces, taking into account all the elements of the article).

- when typing an article, the text editor Word Times New Roman font is used (size - 14, line spacing - 1.5 cm, paragraph indentation - 1.25, margins on the left - 2.5 cm, on the right - 1.5, top and bottom - 2.0 cm). If additional fonts were used when typing, the author must provide them to the editor;

- the text is justified;

- pages are numbered (except for the first one) at the bottom right.

Do not use hand hyphens and extra spaces.

In the Russian-language text, “Christmas trees” quotation marks are used, in case of highlighting within quotations and in the text in foreign languages ​​- “paws”.

Illustrations (black and white figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, etc.) are provided separately (in separate files, fragmentary). The recommended width of the picture is no more than 14 cm, the height is no more than 18 cm. The recommended format is * jpg. Scanned materials must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi. They cannot be represented by Microsoft Office utilities imported into Word.

The material is submitted in electronic form through the author's personal account on the journal's website ("Electronic Edition" service).

Article Template

Article title

Name Surname1 [*], Ivan Ivanov^1,2

¹ Place of work of the author (educational, scientific organization), street, house, zip code, city, country.

² St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, st. Pilyutova 1, 198206 St. Petersburg, Russia

Indicate the ORCID of each author (if absent, you must register on the website https://orcid.org/)

Abstract. Abstract - a concise summary of the content of the publication. The content components of the annotation must not duplicate each other.

The structure of the annotation (all structural parts are drawn up from a new paragraph):

Introduction. ... (the background of the research undertaken by the author: the urgency of the problem, the reasons for its occurrence and the rationale for the need to search for its solutions).

Target. … (A short formulation of a theoretical or practical problem that the author intended to solve).

Methodology, methods and techniques. … (Description of research instruments).

Results. … (A sequential structured presentation of the intermediate and final results of the study with the resulting conclusions).

Scientific novelty. ... (the real contribution of research to the development of the theory of pedagogy and education, as well as related scientific fields).

Practical significance. … (Applied aspects of research, the possibility of practical use of its results).

1. Introduction

The introduction includes a description of the relevance of the research topic, it presents an applied and scientific problem, explains the purpose, object and subject, formulates research hypotheses.

2. Literature review

The article considers modern theoretical ideas about the object and the subject of research, describes the key concepts that determine the opinion of the author about the subject of study. Sources of information should be publications in leading domestic and foreign scientific publications (see wishes for section 7). It is advisable to provide a rationale for the need for empirical research.

3. Methodology, methods and materials of research (Methods, materials, sample)

The organization of the study is described. Methodology, methods and techniques are given with the rationale for their choice, characteristics that indicate their accuracy and reliability of the data obtained with their help. It is appropriate to describe the statistical hypotheses and the criteria for testing them.

The sample of the study, methods of obtaining it, indicators and criteria for judging its adequacy are described.

The research procedure describes the stages, stages, revealing the sequence of their receipt.

4. Results of the study (Results)

The section describes quantitative and qualitative empirical data, provides information on testing hypotheses (hypotheses), the use of statistical criteria. It is appropriate to present the results in a tabular and illustrative form. The completeness and accuracy of the information provided should be observed, since on their basis one can judge the scientific novelty, theoretical and practical value of the results.

5. Discussion of research results (Interpretation)

This section of the publication is the main one. It presents the results proving the hypothesis (hypotheses) of the research, explaining the meaning of the results in the context of modern ideas about the studied subject. It is desirable for the author to compare his results with the results of similar studies carried out on this topic, to point out the similarities and differences between them. The presentation of research materials should be logical, reasonable and consistent.

6. Conclusions

The conclusions briefly reflect the main results of the study, showing the state of the goals, objectives and hypotheses of the study at the end of the work.

It is possible to describe the limitations inherent in the work and affecting the use of its results.

It is appropriate to present the prospects for further scientific and practical work, areas of research that continue this work and reveal new areas, methods, procedures, etc.

Acknowledgments

The section is introduced if necessary. Individuals and legal entities who helped in the research and preparation of the publication are mentioned. Sources of information, technical and financial support are indicated.

7. References

The literature list of 20-40 sources includes published theoretical works and empirical studies, to which the author refers. Citation of educational literature is highly undesirable.

DOIs should be indicated for all sources (see, for example, the site: http://www.crossref.org).

The citation list must include at least 40% of references to publications from foreign journals included in the Scopus, Web of Science databases.

The journal adopted the APA bibliographic style for the design of bibliography and references when citing (https://apastyle.apa.org/). The list of references must include at least 20 scientific sources, of which: 25% are foreign sources, of which 10% must be articles from journals indexed in the MNBD Scopus and Web of Science.

The literature list should contain links to scientific sources of information mentioned in the text of the article. The literature used in writing the article should reflect the current state of the issue, include publications in both domestic and foreign journals and publications.

Anonymous sources and normative documents (regulations, laws, instructions, etc.) that will never be indexed in citation databases cannot be included in the bibliography lists, it is preferable to cite them directly in the text or in inline footnotes; it is undesirable to use in the lists of literature hard-to-reach, unpublished, low-circulation, as well as local, popular and educational sources: abstracts of dissertations and dissertations, newspapers, unpublished reports, teaching aids and textbooks.

Self-citation of the journal is prohibited. Self-citation of the author is allowed only in case of extreme necessity and no more than 20% of the number of sources.

Particular attention should be paid to publications posted in journals:

1. Deviant behavior
2. Criminology
3. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology
4. Journal of criminal justice
5. Journal of research in crime and delinquency
6. Criminal justice and behavior
7. Journal of interpersonal violence
8. Crime delinquency
9. Justice quarterly
10. Journal of quantitative criminology
11. British journal of criminology
12. Aggression and violent behavior
13. Monatsschrift fur kriminologie und strafrechtsreform‎
14. Psychology crime law
15. Sexual abuse a journal of research and treatment
16. Crime law and social change‎
17. Russian journal of criminology
18. American journal of criminal justice
19. European journal of criminology
20. Journal of forensic psychiatry psychology
21. Kriminalistik
22. Canadian journal of criminology and criminal justice
23. Deviance et societe
24. Journal of developmental and life course criminology‎
25. Violence and victims
26. Canadian journal of criminology revue canadienne de criminologie
27. Critical criminology
28. Journal of aggression maltreatment trauma
29. Journal of sexual aggression
30. Victims offenders
31. Youth violence and juvenile justice
32. Asian journal of criminology
33. Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology
34. Crime and justice a review of research
35. European journal on criminal policy and research

The empirical studies reviewed must be current (e.g., publications cited must not be older than 2016).

By submitting an article to the editor, the author (in the case of co-authorship, the author responsible for the publication) guarantees that this text is original (has not been published anywhere before and has not been accepted for publication in other editions), confirms his consent (in the case of co-authorship, the consent of all authors) with the rules of the journal and transfers the rights to the editorial office to publish the article, use the electronic version (posting on the journal's website, etc.).

Document Control: Version 1 Updated 09/30/2021

Content

Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications:

General Provisions.

Basic terms.

Ethical standards in the activities of the management bodies of the journal.

Principles of professional ethics in the work of the editor and publisher.

Ethical principles in the work of the reviewer.

The principles by which the author of scientific publications should be guided.

Common ethical concerns and how to address them:

Plagiarism charges and duplication of publications.

Copyright disputes.

Conflict of interests.

Code of Ethics for Scientific Publishing

The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications unites and discloses general principles and rules that should be followed in their relationships by participants in the scientific publication process: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.

General Provisions.

The editorial board of the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior is guided by ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community. In its activities, the editorial board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Scientific Ethics of Publications (http://publicationethics.org/). The publisher maintains a neutral position on issues published in the journal.

The editorial board of the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior is guided by the ethical standards proposed by the COPE Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications, the European Association of Scientific Editors EASE (http://www.ease.org.uk/), the Council of Scientific Editors CSE (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org /), The Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers of ANRI (http://rassep.ru/).

Basic terms:

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

Editor is a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepares materials for publication, as well as maintains communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

An author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) participating in the creation of the publication of the results of a scientific research.

Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific expertise of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Publisher - a legal entity or individual who issues a scientific publication.

Reader - any person who has read the published materials.

Plagiarism is the deliberate misappropriation of the authorship of someone else's work of science or art, someone else's ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright and patent laws and as such may entail legal liability.

Duplicate or redundant publication - a verbatim reproduction of the text of another publication by the same author in a volume exceeding 30%.

Ethical standards in the activities of the management bodies of the journal.

The ethical rules of the journal must be followed by authors, reviewers, members of the editorial board, editorial staff, as well as all participants in the process of publishing information provided by the journal.

The editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board, editorial board, editorial staff play an important role in resolving potential cases of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, copyright infringement, redundant or duplicate publication and conflicts of interest.

The editor-in-chief provides ethical support and oversight of:

• ensures fulfillment of requests of readers and authors;

• ensures high quality of published materials;

• guarantees and ensures freedom of expression;

• ensures the integrity of published scientific materials;

• if necessary, ensure the publication of amendments, clarifications, refutations and apologies.

Decisions to publish or reject an article are based solely on its value, originality, readability, and relevance of the content to the subject of the journal.

The guidelines for authors and reviewers, which are regularly reviewed and revised, indicate the requirements for them.

The editor-in-chief and editorial staff ensure the right of reviewers to confidentiality of their work, confidentiality of submitted materials up to their publication, and also respond to complaints in a timely manner.

The journal may publish justified criticism of previously published material, if no compelling reasons are presented (by the editor-in-chief or other persons) to refrain from such publications. Before the publication of the critical review, the author of the criticized materials is given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with it, as well as respond to the comments made.

The editor-in-chief and editorial staff are obliged to take adequate action if there is a suspicion of violation of ethical standards (to request clarification from the authors, etc.). If the relevant investigation reveals the fact of falsification, the article is not accepted for publication, and such a case is brought to the attention of the readers.

Decisions to publish articles are made based on their quality and interest to readers.

The interests (financial, personal, political, religious) of the participants in the publication process (authors, editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board and editorial board, editorial staff, reviewers, etc.), which may affect the presentation and objective assessment of the research results, must be disclosed.

The following are considered illegal actions:

• counterfeiting, falsification;

• plagiarism;

• duplicated or redundant publication.

Any previous publications should be disclosed in the article.

Alleged misconduct statements that provide detailed facts to substantiate the claim should be dealt with even if they are anonymous.

The journal encourages discussion and constructive criticism of the works published in it.

When considering an article, the editorial board of the journal can check the material using the Antiplagiat system. If borrowings are identified, the editors act in accordance with the COPE rules.

Principles of Professional Ethics for Editors and Publishers

As a journal editor plays an important role in advancing knowledge in scientific research areas, the Code of Conduct sets minimum standards for all editors who are responsible for journal content decisions to ensure that the journal publishes quality and trustworthy content. The editor carries out his mission:

- maintaining and improving the quality of the work published by the journal and the integrity of the peer review process;

- supporting the authors and reviewers of the journal;

- maintaining and improving the reputation of the journal in cooperation with the editorial team of the journal.

The editors of the journal expect all editors to comply with this Code.

The editor is the first and primary contact for the magazine.

In his activities, the editor is responsible for the publication of copyright works, in connection with which he is guided by the following fundamental principles:

- when deciding on publication, the editor of a scientific journal is guided by the main methods and recommendations of COPE, the reliability of the presentation of data and the scientific significance of the work in question;

- the editor must maintain the reputation of the journal by adhering to ethical standards, ensuring strict adherence to intellectual property rights and maintaining the integrity of research;

- the editor must make sure that all submitted documents comply with ethical standards in relation to authorship, originality of content, there are no duplicate publications, repeated publications, there is no fabrication or falsification of data in the work;

- the editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts, avoiding bias in making editorial decisions, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors;

- unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain;

- the editor should be attentive to any cases of potential manipulation of citation, should not under any circumstances take actions that explicitly or implicitly make citing the journal or its own published articles in other journals a prerequisite for accepting the material for publication;

- the editor must ensure that the authors disclose the sources of funding for the research and publication;

- the editor is obliged to respect the confidentiality of the editorial office, author, reviewer and any other person involved in the investigation of an ethical request;

- the editor should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism;

- the editor must avoid unconstructive criticism in reviews and must make every effort to ensure that all members of the editorial board and reviewers express constructive criticism;

- the editor should refrain from the review process and editorial decisions in relation to articles written by him or in which he has a competing interest. In such cases, the editor should delegate responsibility for the peer review and editorial decision making of any of his own work submitted to the journal to another journal editor;

- the editor, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.

Editorial ethics

The editors of the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior ask editors to make every reasonable effort to comply with the following ethical principles in relation to articles submitted for peer review:

- Journal editors must impartially consider each manuscript submitted for publication. They should be judged on the merits, regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, length of service, academic degree or academic title, author's position;

- the editors of the journal must maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process; they must not share information about the manuscript with anyone outside the peer review process;

- if the editor of the journal is accused of unethical or illegal behavior by the author, reviewer, another editor of the journal or the editor of another journal, the editor of the journal is obliged to inform the editorial office of the journal and demand to initiate an editorial investigation of this fact;

- the editors of the journal may reject the submitted manuscript without official reviewing if they find it unacceptable for the journal and beyond the scope of its subject matter;

- Journal editors should make every reasonable effort to process materials in a timely manner;

- if the editor of the journal receives convincing evidence that the main essence or conclusions of the article published in the journal are incorrect, then after discussion and decision by the editorial board of the journal, he must ensure the publication of the corresponding notice of correction;

- any data or analysis presented in the manuscript submitted to the journal should not be used in the journal editor's own research without the consent of the author.

Ethical principles in the activity of the reviewer

Ethical, timely and effective peer review is essential to a journal, and together with the editorial staff of the journal, the editor is responsible for managing the peer review process and ensuring its integrity.

The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the copyright materials, as a result of which his actions should be impartial, consisting in the implementation of the following principles:

- the manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who do not have the authority to do so from the editorial board;

- the reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable;

- unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes;

- a reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must inform the editor about this with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.

Principles to be followed by the author of scientific publications

An author is considered a researcher who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the published work and presented the results of his research. In the case of co-authorship, each author is responsible for at least one component of the work and should be aware of the contributions of others. He must be fully confident in the qualifications and professionalism of his co-authors.

All persons cited as authors must meet the definition of authorship. The participation of each author in the work must be substantial enough, since each author is publicly responsible for its respective component.

Authors may enter into separate, additional contractual agreements to distribute the published work (for example, place it in a university repository or publish it in a book), with recognition of its original publication in this journal.

All persons related to the work, but not meeting the criteria for authorship, are listed in the section "Acknowledgments" / "Acknowledgments" (persons who helped in planning the study, selecting the material and its analysis, preparing the manuscript for publication, etc.).

The author does not have the right to send the same text to different editions. If the article uses previously published information, the author is obliged to indicate its source, and at the request of the editor, provide a copy of the cited material.

The author must confirm that his article is original and indicate the sources of the cited information.

The author must declare a potential conflict of interest (for example, circumstances that, in his opinion, may affect the publication process).

If a significant error is found in the publication, the author is obliged to immediately inform the editor about it. During the preparation of the material for publication, the author is obliged to cooperate with the editor and publisher and, if necessary, introduce appropriate changes into the text.

The author takes full responsibility for possible plagiarism of text, drawings and other materials. Any copyright infringement will be dealt with according to the criteria proposed by COPE.

The author (or group of authors) realizes that he bears the initial responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following principles:

- the authors of the article must provide reliable results of the research. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable;

- Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unofficial quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of someone else's research, is unethical and unacceptable;

- it is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research, in particular, the article should contain references to works that were of importance in the conduct of the research;

- Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that was sent to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal;

- the co-authors of the article must indicate all persons who have made a significant contribution to the research. Among the co-authors it is inadmissible to indicate persons who did not participate in the study;

- if the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must notify the editorial board of the journal as soon as possible.

Common Ethical Issues and Solutions

Plagiarism and duplication of publications

In case of plagiarism or duplication of publications (fan mailing), the article is additionally checked using the software for checking the text for originality (the editorial office of the journal has installed the software of the Antiplagiat company). In addition, to determine the novelty and originality of the manuscript, which aroused the editor's suspicion, experts from among the members of the editorial board / editorial board of the journal are additionally involved.

If, after an investigation into the plagiarism or duplication of the article, the information is confirmed, then in accordance with the COPE guidelines, the editorial staff of the journal contacts the author (s) of the article and requests an explanation from them.

Based on the results of the editorial investigation and the response of the author (s), the editorial board of the journal makes the following decision:

- in the event that the article is still under review, the editor sends it back to the author for revision and asks to add appropriate links, use quotation marks to indicate direct citations, in order to exclude plagiarism in the text;

- if the similarity between the manuscripts is too great for revision, then the manuscript submitted for evaluation should be rejected;

- if the article has already been published, then it is necessary to start the retraction procedure adopted in the journal.

Copyright disputes

Disputes about authorship are one of the most common complaints in the editors of magazines. In this regard, the editors of the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior adhere to the following guidelines to help establish authorship.

- Authors must indicate as co-authors all persons who have valid claims for authorship. A co-author is defined as any person who has made significant scientific contributions to the work reported in the article and shares responsibility and accountability for the results;

- if the article was prepared by two or more authors, the editorial office of the journal requires to indicate the appointed corresponding author, who, when sending the article for publication, guarantees that:

* all named coauthors have authorized him to act as an agent on their behalf;

* all named coauthors agreed on the order of the names indicated in the article;

* all named co-authors should have made a significant contribution to the preparation of the material for publication;

* all named co-authors are responsible for the development, writing and editing of the article, as well as for checking and confirming the article before submitting it;

* all named co-authors approve the final version of the article, are aware of the submission and approve it before submitting;

* all listed co-authors agree that if the article is found to be unsafe, erroneous, fraudulent, or in violation of the warranties provided, they share the responsibility;

- all named coauthors agree to grant the Corresponding Author the right to act on their behalf with respect to:

• communication with the editorial board of the journal when submitting an application and during the review process (approval of changes required by reviewers; preparation of the final revised version of the article);

• Articles (checking, correcting and confirming the accuracy of all content in the proofs of the article).

Corresponding author must make sure that all specified e-mail addresses, phone numbers, affiliations are correct for all specified authors.

Conflict of interests

A conflict of interest arises if the author (or the institution in which he / she works), reviewer, editor, or any participant in the publication preparation process has financial or private interests (personal relationships, scientific rivalry, intellectual disagreements, etc.) that may negatively reflect on their actions.

Information about the conflict of interest of the participants in the publication process may appear at different stages of the preparation of the article for publication.

1. When submitting a manuscript, the author may declare a possible conflict of interest that may affect his article. The author can do this in a cover letter or in any other way (e-mail, application on the journal's website) notify the editorial office of the journal. By providing this information and ensuring full transparency, the author makes a significant contribution to the dissemination of any potential concerns about conflicts of interest, which helps to preserve and maintain the integrity of scientific research.

2. If the author has declared a conflict of interest during the editorial review or review process, the editor should carefully check the information declared by the author and fairly evaluate the manuscript for any unfounded bias. If the results reported in the manuscript are based on careful research and the author has arrived at his conclusions independently of anyone else's interests, the editor should allow the manuscript to go through the peer review process. However, if a conflict of interest materially affects the interpretation of the results, the editor should consider opt-out.

3. If the author does not declare a conflict of interest until the manuscript is accepted or published, the editor should consider the author's misconduct and act in accordance with the COPE guidelines in each specific situation.

4. Reviewers provide the editors with information about possible conflicts of interest that may affect their opinion on the manuscript. In the presence of such a danger, they refrain from reviewing this material. Reviewers cannot take advantage of the results of the work in question before its publication.

All participants in the process of preparing an article for publication are required to disclose information about any relationship that may be viewed as a potential source of conflict of interest.

The editorial board publishes such information if it believes that it may have an impact on the evaluation of the manuscript.

Document Control: Version 1, December 18, 2020

The procedure for sending and publishing scientific articles, distribution of circulation

1. The Russian Journal of Deviant Dehavior publishes the results of original fundamental and applied scientific research on the problems of deviant behavior.

The selection criteria for articles are compliance with the profile of the journal, novelty, relevance and validity of the results. It is not allowed to send to the editorial office works that have been published and / or accepted for publication in other publications. By sending an article to the editor, the author agrees to the editorial revision of the material.

2. Work on the formation of the issue is carried out by the editorial board of the journal, which includes Russian and foreign experts. The magazine is published by the editorial board of the magazine.

3. The journal is peer-reviewed. Recognized qualified Russian and foreign experts in the relevant fields of knowledge act as reviewers.

4. The editorial board provides peer review of all scientific materials, controls the authors' compliance with the rules for the preparation of articles.

5. Authors, reviewers, editorial board and editorial staff of the journal comply with the provisions of publication ethics (see Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications).

6. The journal publishes current, original, objective and substantiated scientific materials, which were sent to print for the first time, free of charge and without payment of an author's fee. The journal does not publish journalistic, popular and educational texts, advertisements and other non-core materials.

7. The editorial board has the right to edit the title and text of the scientific material, the list of references.

8. When forming the issue of the journal, preference is given to materials:

- corresponding to the thematic profile and headings of the journal;

- containing a clear description of the problem and a reasoned author's version of its resolution;

- having an original character (prepared by the authors independently and not previously published);

- possessing research novelty (based on the results of their own scientific research and presenting new scientific knowledge);

- having a scientific style of presentation (general language literacy, consistency, consistency, clarity, special terminology, the presence of references, etc.)

9. The article is submitted to the editorial office of the journal in electronic form (for this, the author needs to go through electronic registration on the journal's website https://russianjournaldeviantbehavior.ru ), is drawn up in accordance with the requirements for scientific articles.

10. In the system "Electronic edition" the received article is assigned an individual registration number.

11. After registration, the article is sent for initial assessment to the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief), who appoints reviewers for the article.

12. After the appointment of reviewers, the personal data of the author (authors) are deleted from the article. In this form, the article is sent by e-mail to the reviewers.

13. After an expert assessment of the article, the reviewer sends to the editorial office a completed review in electronic form.

14. The decision to publish an article is made by the editorial board of the journal, depending on the results of peer review and verification of the text of the manuscript for originality using specialized software (Antiplagiat system).

The editors reserve the right not to publish articles with a text originality below 70% (while correct citations from one source cannot be more than 7%, citations and borrowings are not allowed in the conclusions).

No more than one article of one author can be published in one issue of the journal, including in co-authorship.

15. The editorial board of the journal sends by e-mail to the corresponding author a letter about the decision taken in relation to the article: publish, publish after revision, the letter gives recommendations for revision.

If a decision is made to reject the publication, the reasons for such a decision are indicated.

The article, revised by the author on the recommendation of the reviewer, is sent by the editorial office to the same reviewer for re-review.

16. If the article is recommended for publication, it undergoes editorial training - technical and literary editing, proofreading. The final version of the article, prepared for publication, is agreed with the author (s).

17. The next issue of the journal includes articles in relation to which by the time the layout starts (in accordance with the production schedule) there are reviews recommending publication and agreed with the author (s).

18. The journal is published 2 times a year (May, October).

19. After the next issue of the journal is published, the editorial office ensures that the journal is sent to organizations that receive a mandatory copy from the manufacturers of online (electronic) publications, as well as to leading Russian and foreign research centers in accordance with the list approved by the founder.

20. The copyright for all materials published in the journal belongs to the founder and publisher.

21. The authors guarantee the journal the right to reproduce unique materials in their work. In case of unauthorized use of materials by authors, the rights to which belong to third parties, the authors of the manuscript are responsible for their reproduction.

22. The editorial office of the journal does not issue certificates of acceptance of the manuscript for reviewing or publication.

SECTION CONTENT

Review procedure

Memo to the reviewer

Review template

Review procedure

The publication reviews all materials submitted to the editorial office that correspond to its subject matter, for the purpose of their expert assessment. All reviewers are recognized experts on the subject of the peer-reviewed materials and have, over the past 3 years, their own publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article.

1. Review form - two-way closed ("double blind").

2. Review of a supervisor or consultant does not replace reviews.

3. Payment from authors for reviewing articles is not charged.

4. The manuscript of a scientific article, received through the author's personal account on the journal's website, is reviewed by the executive secretary of the journal for compliance with the thematic profile of the journal and the design requirements. In the "Electronic Edition" system, each application is assigned a personal number, the author receives a system notification about the stage of the application (on the acceptance of the manuscript for consideration, the need for revision, inclusion in the number, rejection).

5. The received manuscript, in turn, within a month is considered and evaluated from the point of view of compliance with formal requirements by the editorial staff of the journal and, if approved, is sent for review. The choice of reviewers is carried out by the editor-in-chief of the journal (deputy editor-in-chief), the chairman of the editorial board and members of the editorial board.

6. Doctors or candidates of science are involved in peer review, including practitioners who have a recognized authority and work in the relevant topic of the article in the scientific field. The review is signed by a specialist with a transcript of the last name, first name and patronymic, indicating the academic degree, academic rank, position held, and the date of review. If the review is carried out through the "Electronic edition" on the website of the journal, the reviewer only needs to scan the pages of the review with his signature.

7. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree and employees of the department in which the author works.

8. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information that is not subject to disclosure, it is not allowed to make copies of the articles.

9. When reviewing, the confidentiality of information about authors and reviewers is ensured, violation of which is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified.

10. The term for preparing a review is established by agreement with the reviewer, but cannot exceed 2 months from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the reviewer.

11. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the article material, an objective and reasoned assessment of its material and sound recommendations for improving the quality of work. The reviewer assesses the main advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript, guided by the following criteria: correspondence of the content of the article to the profile of the journal, relevance of the chosen topic, scientific and methodological level, use of the necessary research methods, novelty and originality of the main provisions and conclusions, practical usefulness.

12. The review is drawn up in a standard form or in free form with the obligatory coverage of the following issues:

- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, structure of the article, the relevance of the topic;

- the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of the methods, techniques, recommendations and research results used by the author to the modern achievements of science and practice;

- the significance of the problem statement (task) or the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in the considered area of ​​knowledge;

- inaccuracies, mistakes, violations of citation rules made by the author;

- assessment of the preparedness of the article for publication in relation to the language and style, compliance with the established requirements for the design of the article.

The final part of the review should contain well-founded conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation about the advisability of its publication in the journal or the need for its revision.

13. In case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole (recommendation about the inexpediency of publication), the reviewer must justify his conclusions.

If the manuscript does not meet one or several criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to revise the article and give recommendations to the author to improve the article (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).

14. The editorial office notifies the author of the result of the review (sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal).

15. After making corrections and corrections to the article, the author sends three documents to the editorial office (through his personal account on the journal's website):

1) a certificate of author's revision (compiled in any form, includes detailed answers to each comment of the reviewer, listing all the corrections made to take this note into account (indicating pages), or o explaining. Why does the author disagree with the comment;

2) the text of the article with all the edits saved in the reviewing mode, so that the reviewer and editorial staff, when re-examining the article, can directly trace all the changes that were made to the article and evaluate them. The author has the right to disagree with the reviewers and editors and prepare a reasoned answer;

3) finished article (without edits in the margins in the review mode).

16. Articles modified by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made critical comments, or to another at the discretion of the editorial board.

17. If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, he can apply for re-review or withdraw the article, about which a record is made in the "Electronic edition" system (application history).

18. In case of a negative review, the article is transferred to another reviewer, who is not informed about the results of the previous review. In case of a negative result of re-reviewing, copies of negative reviews are sent to the author with a proposal to revise the article.

19. The final decision on the expediency of publication after reviewing is made by the editorial board. The editors reserve the right to reject articles if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes of the editors.

20. Not allowed for publication:

- articles containing previously published material;

- articles, the subject of which is not related to the scientific direction of the journal;

- articles that are not properly formatted, the authors of which refuse to technical revision of the articles;

- articles, the authors of which did not carry out the processing of the article according to the constructive comments of the reviewer.

21. Terms of consideration of articles - no more than 3 months.

22. Reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years from the date of their signing by the reviewer.

23. The editors of the publication send copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of the submitted materials.

24. The editorial office of the publication sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office of the publication.

25. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned.

26. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of their receipt by the editorial office. Papers devoted to particularly topical problems, as well as containing fundamentally new information, may, by decision of the editorial board, be published out of turn.

The editorial board does not enter into discussion of the content of the article with the authors, correspondence on the methodology of writing and formatting scientific articles and does not engage in bringing articles to the required scientific and methodological level.

Document control. Version 1. Updated 03.17.2021

Memo to the reviewer

Dear Reviewer!

The scope of the review is entirely determined by you, but it must necessarily contain all the necessary and objective information in accordance with the Review Template.

The editorial board of the magazine guarantees that your name and the very fact of your recommendation will not become public.

We inform you that the manuscript submitted for review is the intellectual property of the author and refers to information that is not subject to disclosure, it is not allowed to make copies of the articles and use the information contained in the article until it is published.

Beforehand, we ask you to familiarize yourself with the section "Editorial ethics", which includes "Ethical principles in the work of the reviewer".

The editors of the journal will be grateful if you send your comments and suggestions regarding the organization of the journal's work to the e-mail rusjdb@list.ru

The editorial board of the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior sincerely thanks you for your cooperation!

Annex 1

R E C E N G I Z

ON A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE,

presented in the Russian Journal of Deviant Behavior

__________________________________________________________________

(article title)

__________________________________________________________________

Mandatory sections of the review:

1. Assessment of the relevance of the topic of the scientific article (How relevant is the article and corresponds to the profile of the journal?).

2. Assessment of scientific novelty (How new and original is the article?)

3. Assessment of the argumentation (How convincing is the argumentation?)

4. Assessment of the structure of the article (Are the goals and objectives of this study clearly formulated? How clear is the structure and does it correspond to the task at hand?)

- Title (Does the title exactly match the content of the manuscript? Will the title grab the attention of readers?)

- Abstract (the content of the manuscript is properly stated in the abstract - is the abstract structured, describing the goals, methods, results and significance? Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and sections of the manuscript?)

- Keywords (keywords convey the main content of the article? Are they not cumbersome? Is their number optimal?)

- Introduction (Introduction is short? Is the purpose of the research clearly defined and the task set? Does the author substantiate the relevance and significance of the research based on a review of the literature? If yes, does this part meet the volume requirements? Is there a clearly formulated hypothesis in the article?)

- Literature review (How holistic is the literature review? Knowledge of sources? Completeness of secondary and recent literature on the research topic?)

- Methods (theoretical and (or) experimental) (Do the authors justify their choice when describing research methods? If the authors express a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow you to reasonably test the hypothesis?)

- Results (Results are clearly explained? Are the results presented in the same order as the methods? Are the results justified and expected or unexpected? Are there results that are not preceded by a corresponding description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?)

- Discussion (is the discussion brief (succinct)? If not, can it be shortened? If a hypothesis has been voiced, do the authors report whether it has been confirmed or disproved? answer to the question posed in the study? Are the authors' findings consistent with the results of the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors properly analyze them? What is the potential contribution of the research to the industry and to global science?)

- Conclusions - an assessment of the completeness of the validity of the conclusions (Do the authors note the limitations of the study? Are there additional limitations that should be noted? What are the authors 'views on these limitations? What are the authors' views on the direction of future research?)

- Bibliography (How complete does the author cite sources? Does the bibliography correspond to the format of the journal? Are there bibliographic errors in the bibliographic list? Are references to articles from the bibliography in the text of the article correct? Are there any important works that are not mentioned, but which should be noted? more than necessary? Are the cited links up-to-date?)

8. Evaluation of article style (Relevance to scientific / academic style?)

9. Conclusion of the reviewer (one of the options is selected):

The result of the peer review is described by four types of conclusions:

1. Acceptance - the manuscript is accepted unchanged, published without revisions.

2. Minor change - the manuscript is recognized by the reviewer, but requires lexical clarifications, clarification of conclusions, quotations, etc.

The review contains specific indications on the area of ​​the text that needs to be changed. Authors should make clarifications in accordance with the comments of the reviewer. After the correction, the article is sent to the same reviewer to accept the changes.

3. Significant change - the idea of the manuscript is recognized by the reviewer, however, the manuscript requires significant changes:

3.1. additional research or interpretation of results;

3.2. an increase in the volume of the overview part or the inclusion of additional theoretical provisions;

3.3. clarification of the given facts and conclusions.

The review contains the rationale for significant changes in the text and instructions for the inclusion, clarification or clarification of elements of the work. Authors should provide the reviewer (s) with a detailed response to the comments. After correction, the article is re-reviewed.

4. Refusal (rejection) - a manuscript of insufficient quality, novelty or significance for publication. The text of the review contains the justification for the reason for the refusal to publish.

10. Reviewer's data: academic degree, academic title; position; FULL NAME.

In addition to the mandatory sections of the review, you can include Comments for the editor (these comments will not be passed on to the author, this may be a final conclusion about the fate of the manuscript, supposing comments of the reviewer, expression of doubts in connection with a possible violation of ethics, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments).

Date

Signature of the reviewer

There is no payment for the publication of articles.

Frequency - Journal publishes issue four times a year (April, July, October, December). In 2021, it was published twice a year.

VAC

UDK