The Journal of Monetary Economics and Management is included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of candidate of sciences, for the degree of doctor of sciences, in the scientific specialty 5.2.3 - Regional and sectoral economics; 5.2.4 - Finance; 5.2.6 - Management (economic sciences) should be published.

The Journal of Monetary Economics and Management is a Russian theoretical and scientific-practical journal of general economic content. It was founded in 1998 as "International Forwarder" (until 2022), and since 2022 it has had a modern name - "Journal of Monetary Economics and Management". The publication is included in the Russian Science Citation Index (SCI), indexed in: Scientific Electronic Library eLIBRARU.RU (Russia), GLOBAL CATALOGUE OF SERIES ULRICHSWEB ™ (USA), INDEX.net MAGAZINE (USA), INDEX COPERNICUS INTERNATIONAL (Poland), EBSCO Publishing (USA).

Audience: researchers of economics and law; university teachers and students; analytical and legal departments of large enterprises, corporations and banks; heads of federal and regional government bodies.

Authors: leading scientists, representatives of Russian and foreign economic thought

Publication areas:

5.2 - Economic Sciences

• Economic theory;
• Monetary, investment and structural policy;
• Social sphere;
• Regional economy;
• Economy of industry markets, antimonopoly policy;
• Economy of enterprise, problems of ownership, corporate governance, small business;
• World economy;
• Economic history.

Ethics of scientific publications

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of journal in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE).

1. Responsibilities of authors 1.1. The author submitting the manuscript for consideration to journal confirms that it is original, that is, it has not been published previously in other publications in its current or similar form and is not under consideration in another journal. If the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, or working material, the editorial office should be notified.
1.2. The list of authors includes only persons who have made a significant contribution to the research and all of them confirm their consent to submit the manuscript to the journal. At the same time, the author who maintains contact with the editorial board does not make sole decisions and notifies all his co-authors about possible corrections in the article.
1.3. Authors should present the results of their research honestly, without fabrication, falsification or unfair manipulation of data.
1.4. The authors guarantee the absence of plagiarism in any form in the work; in the case of using the works or statements of other persons, the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.
1.5. Authors should avoid self-plagiarism and correctly refer to their previous works. The presentation of the same data in several publications, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of the author's own works are unacceptable. 1.6. Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest (including grants and other financial support) that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
1.7. In case of detection of significant errors or inaccuracies in his already published work, the author must promptly notify the editorial board and make a joint decision with it on the possible form of their correction

2. Responsibilities of reviewers
2.1. Reviewing helps the editor to make an adequate decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the authors can help the author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the view that all scientists who want to publish their work should also participate in reviewing other people's manuscripts.
2.2. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor in a timely manner and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
2.3. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor.
2.4. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.
2.5. Reviewers should pay attention to significant gaps in the lists of used literature on this subject. On the other hand, any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer's scientific competence.
2.6. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used by the reviewer in his own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
2.7. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors or other organizations related to the submitted work.

3. Duties of editors 3.1. The editor is independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal. The decision to publish should always be based on the scientific content of the work in question, its scientific significance and reliability.
The editor makes honest and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensures an honest and effective review process. 3.2. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.
3.3. The Editor guarantees the confidentiality of the review process and does not work with manuscripts in respect of which he has a conflict of interest.
3.4. Editors resolve conflict situations arising in the course of work and use all available means to resolve them.
3.5. The editor, who has received convincing evidence that a gross violation of ethical standards or erroneous statements or conclusions took place in the published article, should inform the publisher about this in order to notify the publisher as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal (retraction) of the publication, expression of concern and other actions relevant to the situation.

4. Publisher's Responsibilities 4.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that his general attitude towards earning income has not influenced the editors' decisions.
4.2. The publisher should support the editors of the journal in considering claims to the ethical aspects of the published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers, if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of the editors.
4.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement best practices in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for revoking articles and correcting errors.

5. Review (retraction) of articles
When considering situations related to the withdrawal (retraction) of articles, the editorial board and the publisher of journal are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and HENRI Ethics Council (The rule of revocation (retraction) of the article from publication ).
Grounds for revocation of the article:
— detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value
— duplication of publications in several editions
— detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication
The article may be withdrawn at the official request of the authors who have explained the reason for their decision, as well as at the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher on the basis of their own expertise. In the latter case, an official letter is sent to the author (or the lead author as part of the team of authors) with information about the reasons for the withdrawal of the article.
After the review, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as withdrawn. The same note is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been withdrawn.
The editorial board publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article indicating the reasons and the date of retraction on the official website of the journal and in the next print issue.
Information about the review of the article and its PDF version with the appropriate labeling are sent to the NEB (elibrary.ru ) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also transmitted to the HENRI Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications for inclusion in a Single database of retracted articles.

Founder
• Autonomous non-profit organization of additional professional education "University of Information Technology and Business Education"

Publication fee
Publication in the journal is free for authors.
The editorial board does not charge the authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.

Disclosure Policy and conflicts of interest
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author.
Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

Borrowing and plagiarism
The editorial Board of the journal "Journal of Monetary Economics and Management" when reviewing an article can verify the material using the Anti-plagiarism. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the rules COPE.

Preprint and Postprint Placement Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in other scientific journals. When referring to an article published in journal, the publisher asks you to post a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Articles previously published by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are allowed to be considered.

Ethics of scientific publications

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of journal in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE).

1. Responsibilities of authors 1.1. The author submitting the manuscript for consideration to journal confirms that it is original, that is, it has not been published previously in other publications in its current or similar form and is not under consideration in another journal. If the work is based on material previously published as a report, preprint, or working material, the editorial office should be notified.
1.2. The list of authors includes only persons who have made a significant contribution to the research and all of them confirm their consent to submit the manuscript to the journal. At the same time, the author who maintains contact with the editorial board does not make sole decisions and notifies all his co-authors about possible corrections in the article.
1.3. Authors should present the results of their research honestly, without fabrication, falsification or unfair manipulation of data.
1.4. The authors guarantee the absence of plagiarism in any form in the work; in the case of using the works or statements of other persons, the authors provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.
1.5. Authors should avoid self-plagiarism and correctly refer to their previous works. The presentation of the same data in several publications, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of the author's own works are unacceptable. 1.6. Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest (including grants and other financial support) that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
1.7. In case of detection of significant errors or inaccuracies in his already published work, the author must promptly notify the editorial board and make a joint decision with it on the possible form of their correction

2. Responsibilities of reviewers
2.1. Reviewing helps the editor to make an adequate decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the authors can help the author to improve the quality of the work. Reviewing is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the view that all scientists who want to publish their work should also participate in reviewing other people's manuscripts.
2.2. Any selected reviewer who is aware of the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify the editor in a timely manner and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
2.3. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor.
2.4. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinion.
2.5. Reviewers should pay attention to significant gaps in the lists of used literature on this subject. On the other hand, any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the editor's attention to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer's scientific competence.
2.6. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used by the reviewer in his own research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.
2.7. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors or other organizations related to the submitted work.

3. Duties of editors 3.1. The editor is independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal. The decision to publish should always be based on the scientific content of the work in question, its scientific significance and reliability.
The editor makes honest and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensures an honest and effective review process. 3.2. The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.
3.3. The Editor guarantees the confidentiality of the review process and does not work with manuscripts in respect of which he has a conflict of interest.
3.4. Editors resolve conflict situations arising in the course of work and use all available means to resolve them.
3.5. The editor, who has received convincing evidence that a gross violation of ethical standards or erroneous statements or conclusions took place in the published article, should inform the publisher about this in order to notify the publisher as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal (retraction) of the publication, expression of concern and other actions relevant to the situation.

4. Publisher's Responsibilities 4.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that his general attitude towards earning income has not influenced the editors' decisions.
4.2. The publisher should support the editors of the journal in considering claims to the ethical aspects of the published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers, if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of the editors.
4.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement best practices in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for revoking articles and correcting errors.

5. Review (retraction) of articles
When considering situations related to the withdrawal (retraction) of articles, the editorial board and the publisher of journal are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and HENRI Ethics Council (The rule of revocation (retraction) of the article from publication ).
Grounds for revocation of the article:
— detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value
— duplication of publications in several editions
— detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication
The article may be withdrawn at the official request of the authors who have explained the reason for their decision, as well as at the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher on the basis of their own expertise. In the latter case, an official letter is sent to the author (or the lead author as part of the team of authors) with information about the reasons for the withdrawal of the article.
After the review, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains the DOI identifier, but is marked as withdrawn. The same note is made in the table of contents of the issue. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been withdrawn.
The editorial board publishes a statement on the withdrawal of the article indicating the reasons and the date of retraction on the official website of the journal and in the next print issue.
Information about the review of the article and its PDF version with the appropriate labeling are sent to the NEB (elibrary.ru ) and other bibliographic databases in which the journal is included. The information is also transmitted to the HENRI Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications for inclusion in a Single database of retracted articles.

Founder
• Autonomous non-profit organization of additional professional education "Center for the Development of Education and Science"

Publication fee
Publication in the journal is free for authors.
The editorial board does not charge the authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.

Disclosure Policy and conflicts of interest
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author.
Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

Borrowing and plagiarism
The editorial Board of the journal "Journal of Monetary Economics and Management" when reviewing an article can verify the material using the Anti-plagiarism. In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the rules COPE.

Preprint and Postprint Placement Policy
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in other scientific journals. When referring to an article published in journal, the publisher asks you to post a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.
Articles previously published by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are allowed to be considered.

Rules for the design, presentation and publication of articles in journal

General requirements for author's materials and conditions of publication in the journal
1.1. Articles sent to the journal must contain the results of independent scientific research of the authors, correspond to the scientific level and thematic profile of the journal (economics, national economy management and jurisprudence), have scientific novelty and be of interest to specialists.
1.2. Submission to the editorial board of materials previously published, posted on the Internet or sent for publication to other publications is not allowed.
1.3. Recommended manuscript size: no less than 6 and no more than 16 typewritten A4 pages.
1.4. No more than two materials of the same author can be published in one issue of the journal.
1.5. Information about the author (author's certificate) is attached to the article. 1.6. When submitting an article, an external review may be submitted at the discretion of the author.
1.7. Manuscripts of students, masters, postgraduates are accepted for consideration only if there is a brief review of the supervisor / teacher with a recommendation for publication of the article. 1.8. Articles accepted for consideration are subject to peer review and, in case of a positive review by the reviewer, to scientific and literary editing.

The information about the author (author's certificate) indicates (in Russian and English):
✓ surname, first name, patronymic in full;
✓ academic degree, academic title, honorary title, membership in academies, the title of laureate (if available);
✓ the status of an applicant, associate, postgraduate, master, student (indicating the department) (if available);
✓ current position;
✓ place of work / service / study (full name of the organization with its postal address);
✓ the name of the organization's division;
✓ contact information (address, phone, e-mail).
Note. If the article is co-authored, then the information is presented for each author separately in one text document.

The procedure for sending manuscripts of articles and accompanying documents to the editorial office
3.1. The manuscript of the article, information about the author (author's reference), a brief review of the supervisor / teacher with a recommendation for the publication of the article of students, masters, applicants, postgraduates (scan) are sent by e-mail or by e-mail the carrier;
3.2. Materials in electronic form are sent to the following e-mail address: jomeam@yandex.ru;

Design of the manuscript
4.1. Technical parameters of the article
Page format: A4 (210×297 mm).
Text editor: Microsoft Word97 and higher.
Font: Times New Roman.
Margins: left — 3 cm; right — 1.5 cm; upper and lower — 2 cm.
Size (font size): 14 points.
Line spacing: one and a half.
Hyphenation: not allowed.
Page numbering: at the bottom or at the top in the center.
Numbering of footnotes: end-to-end throughout the text of the article.
Alignment of the main text and links: by width.
Paragraph indentation: 1.25 cm.

4.2. Mandatory constituent elements of the article:
✓ UDC index (universal decimal classification);
✓ title;
✓ abstract;
✓ keywords;
✓ main text;
✓ bibliographic list;
✓ information about the author.
The title, abstract, keywords and information about the author/co-authors are presented in Russian and English

4.3. Graphic elements and illustrations
4.3.1. Tables, diagrams, graphs, drawings and photo illustrations should be numbered and titled (accompanied by captions).
4.3.2. Source tables, diagrams, graphs are provided in separate files in the format of the program in which they were created.
4.3.3. The original drawings and photo illustrations are also provided in separate files.
The resolution of raster illustrations should be at least 300 dpi.

4.4. References
4.4.1. The list of references is drawn up in accordance with GOST 7.0.100-2018 "Bibliographic reference. General requirements and rules of compilation". 4.4.2. When making a bibliographic list in the journal, a combined alphabetical and systematic principle is applied, according to which the literature is arranged in the following order:
1.Official documents:
✓ regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;
✓ international acts ratified by the Russian Federation (first of all, there are UN documents) (located after the Constitution of the Russian Federation);
✓ legally invalid regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation with mandatory indication in parentheses — "expired"; ✓ normative legal acts of Russia and the USSR relating to historical materials: documents adopted before October 25 (November 7), 1917; documents of the Soviet period;
✓ regulatory legal acts of foreign states in which the Russian Federation does not participate;
Current and expired regulatory legal acts are placed according to the degree of significance. Documents with equal legal force, with the exception of codes, are grouped in reverse chronological order according to the dates of their adoption (signed by the President of the Russian Federation). The codes are arranged in alphabetical order.
Scientific and educational literature: monographs, dissertations, textbooks, textbooks, encyclopedias, scientific articles, electronic resources of local and remote access.
The placement of these sources, including electronic resources, is carried out in alphabetical order by the author's surnames and the names of the sources.
Literature in foreign languages. It is placed in alphabetical order in the original language. If there are references in different languages in the bibliographic list — first, in the order of the Cyrillic alphabet, entries in languages using Cyrillic fonts, then in the order of the Latin font in languages with a Latin font.
4.4.3. All bibliographic entries in the list of references are numbered. References are enclosed in square brackets [3; 12, etc.]; if there is a link to specific pages: [3, p. 417].

4.5. Information about the article in English (indicated on the last page):
✓ title of the article;
✓ The name and Surname of the authors (transliteration);
✓ place of work of each author (full official English name of the organization);
✓ city, country;
✓ abstract;
✓ keywords;
✓ JEL classification codes.
✓ author for contacts, email.

5. Copyright
The authors who publish in this journal grant the ANO DPO Center for the Development of Education and Science an exclusive license to publish and distribute the article (including any derivative products, in all languages) and sublicense such rights, including for commercial purposes.

Publication Information

The order of review of articles. Reviewing.

The selection of articles for publication in the journal is as follows.

1. The received manuscript undergoes the process of initial evaluation in terms of compliance with formal and qualitative requirements: the journal's subject matter, rules for the design of articles, originality, clarity and consistency of presentation in literate Russian, etc. In case of non-compliance with these requirements, the article is not accepted for consideration, about which the Editorial Board notifies the author with an indication of the reason for refusal. As a rule, this happens within 5 days, starting from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the Editorial Office.

2. If the article is accepted for consideration, all further negotiations with the author are carried out by the editor, who sends the manuscript for review to experts – recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed material who have publications in this field over the past 3 years. In controversial cases, the article can be sent to more than two specialists. They may include both members of the editorial board and external experts.

3. The review is carried out anonymously: the names of the authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. The review process, according to experience, takes an average of 5 days.

4. The review should contain:
• evaluation of the essence of the work and the possibility of its publication in the journal;
• specific enumeration of errors in methodology and tools (if any);
• suggestions for the revision of the text.

5. Based on the results of the review, the article can be accepted for publication (5.1), sent to the author for revision (5.2) or rejected (5.3). Copies of the reviews are sent to the authors.
5.1. Upon receipt of a positive reviewers' opinion, the article is sent to the proofreader of the journal for final editorial preparation for publication (see paragraph 6).
5.2. After revision, the article is re-sent to reviewers assessing how adequately their comments were taken into account and/or how well the author's refusal of certain corrections is reasoned.
5.3. Upon receipt of a negative opinion of the reviewers, the article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board working group, which decides on the rejection of the article or on the need to receive an additional review by an independent expert. In case of rejection of the article, a notification letter is sent to the author.
5.4. Reviews are kept in the Editorial Office for 5 years. The editorial board undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.

6. The preparation of the article for publication, carried out by the Editorial Board of the journal, consists in monitoring the consideration of reviewers' comments, literary editing and bringing the text up to editorial standards adopted in the journal. Editorial edits are agreed with the authors.

7. The final decision on the date of publication of the article is made in the working order in the process of forming the structure and content of the next issues and is approved by the editor-in-chief or his deputy.

Indexing
Publications in journal are included in the calculation systems of citation indexes of authors and journal. "Citation index" is a numerical indicator that characterizes the significance of this article and is calculated on the basis of subsequent publications referring to this work.

Logs are indexed in systems:
• The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) is a bibliographic and abstract index implemented in the form of a database accumulating information about publications of Russian scientists in Russian and foreign scientific publications. The RSCI project has been developed since 2005 by the Scientific Electronic Library Company (eLibrary.RU ).

 Retraction of articles
When considering situations related to the retraction of articles, the editorial board and publisher of the journal are guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Retraction Guidelines) and the Ethics Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Rule for Retraction of Articles from Publication)).
Grounds for retraction of an article:
— detection of serious errors or falsification of data in the article, which casts doubt on its scientific value
— duplication of publication in several publications
— detection of incorrect borrowing (plagiarism) in the publicationAn article may be retracted upon an official request from the authors, who have reasonably explained the reason for their decision, as well as on the initiative of the editorial board of the journal or the publisher based on their own expertise. In the latter case, the author (or the lead author in the group of authors) is sent an official letter with information about the reasons for the retraction of the article.
After retraction, the article remains on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue and retains its DOI identifier, but is marked as retracted. The same mark is made in the issue's table of contents. The PDF version of the article is replaced with an identical version with a watermark indicating on each page that the article has been retracted.
The editors publish a statement about the retraction of the article, indicating the reasons and date of retraction, on the official website of the journal and in the next printed issue.
Information about the retraction of the article and its PDF version with the corresponding mark are sent to the NEL (elibrary.ru) and other bibliographic databases to which the journal is included. The information is also transferred to the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of the ASRI for inclusion in the Unified Database of Retracted Articles.

It is published 12 times a year