Publication Ethics

In the development of the publication ethics, the editorial board of the journal has taken into account the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the experience of other scientific organizations and editorial offices.

Ethical obligations of the editors of the publication

  1. All materials provided for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to amend the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board.
  2. The editor must objectively consider all the manuscripts submitted to the publication, evaluating each one properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, as well as the place of work of the author(s).
  3. The editor must promptly review the manuscripts submitted for publication.
  4. The editor is fully responsible for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. Responsible and well-considered approach to fulfilling these responsibilities usually assumes that the editor takes into account the recommendations of reviewers regarding the quality and authenticity of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without review if they do not match the profile of the publication.
  5. The editor and members of the editorial board will not disclose to other persons information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for persons involved in the professional assessment of this manuscript.
  6. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  7. The responsibility and the right of the editor of the journal for any manuscript submitted by the editor himself must be delegated to any other qualified person.
  8. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are false, he/she should facilitate the publication of the corresponding notification, indicating the mistake and, if possible, correct it. The notification may be written by the person who found the mistake, or by an independent author.

Ethical commitment of authors

  1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate record of the study, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
  2. The initial report on the results of the study should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary references to available sources of information.
  3. The authors of the articles are responsible for the content of the articles. The results of the study, highlighted in the article should be reliable.
  4. The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence on the nature of the work, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader to earlier works that are important to understand the study. Except for surveys, it is necessary to minimize quoting of works that are not directly related to the article submitted. The author is required to conduct a literary search to find and cite original publications that describe the research and are closely related to the study. It is also necessary to specify the sources of material of essential importance used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the author.
  5. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who conducts extensive research of a system or a group of related systems should arrange the publication so that each piece of information gives a complete idea of ​​each aspect of the general study.
  6. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor of previous publications or manuscripts of the author, submitted or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted to the editor, and their links with the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated.
  7. The author must not submit manuscripts that essentially describe the same results in more than one journal in the form of a primary publication, unless it is repeatedly submitted to the journal that rejected the publication before or withdrawn by the author of the manuscript. It is possible to submit a manuscript of a full article that expands the previously published short preliminary report (notice) about the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor should be informed that this is an extension or continuation of the study, and that the previous publication should be quoted in this manuscript.
  8. The author should clearly indicate the sources of all quoted or presented information, except for well-known information. Information received privately during the conversation, in correspondence or during discussions with third parties should not be used or reported in the work of the author without the explicit permission of the researcher from whom this information was received. Information obtained through the provision of confidential services, such as when reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.
  9. The co-authors of the article should be all those who have made a significant scientific contribution to the work presented and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the "Acknowledgements" section. Administrative relations with the study alone are not the basis for qualifying the person concerned as co-author (but in certain cases it may be appropriate to note significant administrative assistance in the work). Persons who have died and meet the criteria set out above must be included in the list of authors, and the note should indicate the date of their death. You can not specify fake names as an author or co-author. The author, who presents the manuscript for publication is responsible for including all those persons who meet the criterion of authorship in the list of collaborators. In an article written by several authors, one of the authors who represents the contact details, documents and communicates with the editor should have the permission of other authors of the article for its publication.
  10. Personal criticism of scholars can not be considered appropriate under any circumstances. However, published articles in appropriate situations may contain critics of experimental or theoretical research.
  11. Authors should inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest, such as the consulting or financial interests of any company that might be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors should ensure that there are no contractual relationships or property considerations that could affect the publication of the information contained in the manuscript submitted.

Ethical commitment of reviewers

  1. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, and also take into account the extent to which the work conforms to high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualification corresponds to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.
  3. The reviewer must take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest in cases where this manuscript is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer must immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.
  4. If the reviewer is guessing who is the author or co-author of the manuscript and therefore unable to conduct an impartial and objective independent assessment of the manuscript, he/she should stop reviewing and inform the executive editor of the journal about the impossibility of further work.
  5. Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments, so that editors and authors can understand what their remarks are based on. Any statement that the observation, conclusion or argument has previously been published should be accompanied by a corresponding reference.
  6. The reviewer should mark any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the work of other scholars who are directly related to the work being reviewed; it should be borne in mind, however, that the comments on the inadequate quoting of their own research by the reviewer may look biased. The reviewer should draw attention of the editor to any significant similarity between the given manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to the other journal.
  7. The reviewer must provide a review in a timely manner.
  8. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless otherwise authorized by the author. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may prove to be unsuccessful, the termination of such work by the reviewer is not contrary to ethical standards.
  9. The seriousness of the accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to provide adequate and substantiated grounding of his/her own comments. Any allegation of plagiarism or bias citation should be accompanied by a relevant reference (the reviewer's findings should not be unfounded or discredited by the author without serious grounds for doing so).
  10. If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, he/she must apply to the editorial board for a collective review of the author's article.
  11. Since the reviewer should mark any cases of inadequate citation by the authors of the work of other scholars working in the field of the reviewed article, comments on the inadequate quoting of their own research by the reviewer are identified as biased.
  12. Support for the periodicity of the publication of the journal requires a reviewer of high self-discipline, which is disclosed through the timely submission of reviews on the article and in respect of the authors of the article (in the case of infertility towards authors or systematic submission of low-quality reviews or violation of the deadlines for the submission of reviews of the relationship with the reviewer is discontinued).