- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Revenue Sources
- » AI usage
- » Translated versions of the FIPS Bulletin in the languages of the EAPO member countries
Aim and Scope
The purpose of the journal is to highlight the results of scientific activity in the field of intellectual property.
Fields of public knowledge: economics, law, management, information technology and medicine.
The subject of the journal is intellectual property and the system of ensuring inventive, rationalization and innovation activities in Russia, combining scientific research, expert analysis, legal, communication, marketing and other areas of patent business.
Articles, scientific reports, reviews, case studies, and reviews can also be posted. The results of the RID obtained during research or as a result of an official assignment are also accepted for publication, namely: methodological recommendations, analytical materials in the interests and on orders from public authorities of international and national importance on intellectual property issues.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Вид рецензирования - двойное слепое рецензирование.
Срок подготовки рецензии - 20 дней.
Если от рецензентов получены противоречивые рецензии, редколлегия вправе направить статью третьему рецензенту.
Publication Frequency
4 times per year
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
- The manuscripts submitted by the authors are reviewed by the editorial board for compliance with the Requirements for materials sent for publication in the Journal, and the material is checked using the Anti-Plagiarism system. The results of the check are issued by a certificate generated in the Anti-Plagiarism system (FIPS). In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with the COPE rules.
- If all the requirements are met, the Manuscript is registered in the database, and a notification of acceptance of the Manuscript is sent to the author of the Manuscript.
- The review of manuscripts is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the Journal. The Journal has established a double anonymous review (the personal data of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors).
4.1. Reviewers must be recognized experts on the subject of the reviewed article.
4.2. The reviewer may not be the co-author of the reviewed work, the scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree.
4.3. Reviewers are notified that the Manuscripts submitted to them for review are intellectual property and are classified as confidential information.
- If contradictory reviews are received from reviewers, the editorial board has the right to send the article to a third reviewer.
- The review is compiled in accordance with the Appendix and is accompanied by written comments in free form.
6.1. Reviewers who have accepted the assignment to review the Manuscript submit the review within 20 days. The reviewer is obliged to refuse to perform the assignment at any stage if he does not have sufficient qualifications to conduct a scientific examination or a potential conflict of interest may arise during its conduct (for example, due to relations and connections in terms of competition, cooperation, etc., with any authors, institutions or firms related to the Manuscript).
6.2. The review should contain an assessment of the submitted material according to the following provisions:
a) relevance of the topic submitted by the Manuscript;
b) the scientific novelty of the research results presented in the Manuscript;
c) research methods and statistical processing;
d) clarity and consistency of the presentation of the material;
e) the significance and relevance of the results obtained;
f) the presence of generalizations and conclusions made by the author based on a comparison of his own results with the data from the sources of the literature studied;
g) compliance of the conclusions with the purpose and objectives of the study;
h) the availability of a list of cited literature and its compliance with the claimed scientific topic of the reviewed article.
- The signed review is sent to the editorial office by e-mail (vestnik_fips@rupto.ru) or submitted personally by the reviewer.
- Based on the results of the review, the Manuscript may be:
Recommended for publication. The final decision on the acceptance of the Manuscript for publication in the Journal is made at the editorial board meeting.;
rejected. In case of a negative evaluation of the Manuscript, the reviewer justifies his conclusions and points out significant inconsistencies that influenced the decision. The editorial board sends the author of the Manuscript a reasoned refusal or a copy of the review.
aimed at revision. The reviewer indicates in the review that the article needs to be finalized and makes recommendations to the author on how to eliminate the comments. The author of the Manuscript must make all necessary corrections to the final version of the Manuscript no later than 7 calendar days after receiving the email notification, and return the corrected text and a cover letter to the reviewer explaining his position, including in case of disagreement with the comments. The manuscripts finalized by the author are re-sent for review to the same reviewer who made significant comments, or to another one at the discretion of the editorial board.
- Manuscripts whose authors have not eliminated the reviewer's significant comments or do not refute them in a reasoned manner will not be accepted for publication.
- If the author does not agree with the reviewer's comments, he may request a second review or withdraw the Manuscript, which he must notify the editorial board in writing and receive confirmation of the withdrawal of the Manuscript from consideration.
- The editorial board informs the author about the decision regarding the publication of the Manuscript. The relevant information is provided only to the author of the Manuscript.
- The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years, copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request to the editorial office.
Publishing Ethics
Reliability of the study
Each manuscript is an independent completed text. The main task of the author is to present the results of his research as fully and reliably as possible. Both the data used and the discussion of the significance of the study should be reliable. Data refers to information obtained or used by the authors to formulate the main conclusions. The study should be detailed enough to understand the essence of the work and refer to available sources of information.
Citation and responsibility of the Author
The author is obliged to make references to those works that had the greatest impact on his research, so that the reader can refer to earlier original research on the problem under consideration. The list of references should contain all the sources mentioned by the author in the text of the manuscript. The author is responsible for the correctness of the references presented in the work, thus emphasizing the contribution of other researchers.
The author submits an article for review, the materials of which have not been previously published. If the article is based on previously published materials of a non-academic nature or the materials are presented on the Internet (for example, posted on a preprint server), the author notifies the editorial board of the journal.
The author does not submit one article to different journals for review.
All co-authors agree to submit the article to the journal.
The author notifies the editorial board of a potential conflict of interest.
The author correctly cites the sources used, including his own earlier works, avoids self-plagiarism in the manuscript and artificially increasing the number of publications or the volume of the article.
The list of authors includes all persons who have made a significant contribution to the research, and only these persons. Attribution is not allowed.
The corresponding author notifies his co-authors of all changes and suggestions from the editorial board of the journal and does not make decisions regarding the article alone, without the consent of all co-authors.
The author correctly conducts correspondence with the reviewer through the editorial office and responds to comments and observations, if any.
The author cooperates with the editorial board, responds to letters from the editor and any questions that arise; if necessary, makes adjustments to the text of the submitted article.
Ethical principles of the Editorial Board members
The members of the Editorial Board participate in the development of the journal's development strategy and support the ethical standards of interaction adopted in the scientific and publishing communities.
In order to promote the quality of the journal's work and increase its prestige in the scientific community, members of the Editorial Board have the right to publish their work (including co-authorship) in the journal based on the norms of Publication ethics and rules adopted in the journal.
Ethics, duties and responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor-in-Chief
When managing the journal and making decisions about publications, the editor-in-chief and his deputy are guided by the provisions of the journal's Charter, current legislation in the field of defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism, principles of impartiality and confidentiality. They work closely with the members of the Editorial Board.
The editor-in-Chief and his deputy have the right to publish their articles (including co-authorship) in the journal on the basis of the norms of Publication ethics and the rules adopted in the journal. The final decision to publish their articles, taking into account the opinions of editors and reviewers, should be supported by two members of the Editorial Board.
Investigation of violations of ethical principles: The Editor-in-Chief and his deputy are responsible for ethical supervision, resolution of issues regarding conflicts of interest/competing interests, intellectual property and other violations of ethical principles in manuscripts or already published articles. They also decide to make public the results of the relevant investigations.
Handling complaints and appeals: The Editor-in-Chief and his deputy organize the handling of complaints and appeals (primarily from authors) received by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Board of the journal. They are responsible for ensuring timely response to complaints and appeals and transparency of the process. Its purpose is to resolve the issues raised and achieve understanding between all stakeholders.
Ethics of reviewers
The reviewer must remain anonymous to the author. The name and contacts of the reviewer are known only to the issuing editor.
The reviewer reviews the submitted manuscript objectively and impartially. Personal criticism of the authors, hostility, and insulting tone are unacceptable. Reviewers should avoid statements that cast doubt on the reputation of the authors and formulate their conclusions about the reviewed manuscript with due respect.
A reviewer who considers himself unqualified to review a proposed manuscript should notify the editor and abandon the review process. If it is necessary to discuss it with third parties as part of a scientific consultation, the reviewer must notify the editorial board.
The reviewer is obliged to declare any potential conflict of interest before the review begins. A conflict of interest may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious, and may also include any relationship with the author that affects the outcome of the review.
The reviewer should provide a meaningful and comprehensive review report, as well as comments that will help the authors improve their manuscript. The reviewer should express his point of view by arguing and explaining what additional research is needed to confirm the conclusions and clarify the results made in the manuscript under consideration. If a decision is made to finalize the manuscript, the reviewer must review the corrections and submit his final decision. The reviewer is not allowed to use the information, data, theory or interpretations presented in the manuscript in his own works before the publication of the article or without the written consent of the author. The information obtained as a result of the review should remain confidential and not be used for personal purposes.
Publisher's Responsibility
The publisher supports scientific communication and invests in this process, and is responsible for following all current recommendations in the published work.
The publisher has no influence on the editorial policy of the journal.
The publisher provides legal support to the editorial staff of the journal (if necessary).
The publisher ensures the timely release of the next issues of the journal.
The publisher publishes edits, clarifications, and withdraws articles that reveal ethical violations or serious errors.
Founder
- The Federal Institute of Industrial Property (FIPS)
Author fees
Publication in “Bulletin of Federal institute of industrial property" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
“Bulletin of Federal institute of industrial property" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints.
AI usage
The Journal's policy on generative artificial intelligence
This policy regulates the use of tools with generative artificial intelligence, which are designed to create new content (text, code, images, data) and modify it.
Key policy provisions:
No program with genII can be named an author or co-author of an article and cannot be noted as having contributed to the work on the article.
Any result obtained with the help of a genius should be critically evaluated by a person.
Any use of genIA must be disclosed accordingly.
The responsibility for the information obtained with the help of GENII is solely the responsibility of man.
The current policy is not final, individual points may be revised depending on the working conditions with genII and progress in this area.
The editorial board of the journal "Vestnik FIPS" prohibits the use of programs with genII as follows:
Geniuses cannot be used to solve the author's key tasks: generating scientific, pedagogical, medical ideas, scientific conclusions, or developing clinical recommendations.;
Use AI to create any type of content, including annotations and additional materials.;
Geniuses should not replace critical aspects of scientific work, such as interpreting data, forming conclusions, and creating reliable content.
Image and data generation and editing
GenII can be used to create or modify images, provided that information about working with the image is disclosed and the following conditions are met: Adjusting brightness, contrast, or color balance is acceptable if it does not distort the original data. It is unacceptable to enhance, hide, move, delete, or add specific elements to an image. The fact of the use of GENIA must be described in the caption.
Quoting the program's responses from genII in the text
You cannot quote the answers from the genII program in the text of the article.
Disclosure of information about the use of genII
The editorial board of the journal "Vestnik FIPS" obliges authors to indicate information about the use of GENII in the declaration after the text of the article.:
Using tools with Geniuses
Information disclosure should include information about which generative AI tool was used (name, version, and number), the purpose of its use, and how it was used.
For example:
During the preparation of the work ".........." the AUTHOR(s) used [TOOL/SERVICE NAME] in order to [CAUSE]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) have reviewed and edited the content as needed and assume full responsibility for the content of the publication.
The use of GENIUS in conducting peer review
The reviewer is prohibited from:
uploading the text of an article or its fragments to the program is prohibited due to possible privacy violations;
uploading the text of the review or its fragments to the program is prohibited due to possible privacy violations;
use the program with genII to evaluate the article.
If the reviewer suspects that geniuses were used in the article, he should inform the editor about this.
Using Genius when editing an article
The editor is prohibited from:
uploading the text of an article or its fragments to the program is prohibited due to possible privacy violations;
uploading the text of the review or its fragments to the program is prohibited due to possible privacy violations;
use the genII program to combine reviewers' comments and prepare a letter for the author with the final decision on publication.
Actions of the editorial board upon detection of undisclosed use of genIA (before or after publication)
The editor of the journal may have suspicions of undeclared or incorrect use of GENIUS before or after publication. In case of suspicion, the editorial board of the journal acts as follows:
requests clarifications from the authors;
requests to send a confirmation of independent work with the text of the article – drafts, raw data;
checks the text of the article in an alternative genII detector (without using a genII chatbot);
checks for generated fragments of the author's texts that were written before the appearance of programs with genII;
After collecting the information, the editorial board reviews the article and the influence of GENIUS on the research results, then decides on the fate of the article.:
make changes/additions to the article with the appropriate note;
retag the article according to the existing algorithm.
Resolution of disputes
The decision on each case that raises suspicion is individual.
In case of disputes, the editorial board of the journal relies on existing guidelines and recommendations, as well as on its own policy regarding the use of genII.
