Publishing ethics

Code of Ethics for Editorial Team

  1. The editorial team is inspired by the principles of professionalism, objectivity, and impartiality.
  2. The editorial team should work conscientiously with the texts of articles and assist the authors in improving the submitted manuscripts by the means of scientific peer reviewing and literary editing.
  3. The editorial team is obliged to treat the author with respect and to interact on the principles of politeness, fairness, honesty, and transparency.
  4. The editorial team is prohibited to disclose information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts to anyone else, except the author and/or the peer reviewer.
  5. It is not allowed to inform anyone else except the author(s) and the editorial team about the content of peer reviews of an author’s work.
  6. Confidential information obtained during correspondence with the author and/or peer reviewers is not subject to disclosure.
  7. The editorial team does its best to prevent unfair scientific publications containing falsified data and plagiarism from appearing on the pages of the journal.

Code of Ethics for Editor-in-Chief

  1. The editor-in-chief makes a decision on the publication of an article based on the expert evaluation by peer reviewers and the opinion of the members of the Editorial Board. The evaluation of papers should be based exclusively on the reliability verification of the results, the relevance of the topic, and its significance for researchers and readers.
  2. The editor-in-chief should not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone else except the author and peer reviewers. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted article may not be used by the editor-in-chief without the written consent of the author.
  3. Confidential information received during the peer review process is not to be disclosed or used for personal gain.
  4. The editor-in-chief has an obligation not to consider a submitted article if there is a conflict of interest.
  5. If an ethics complaint is received about a submitted manuscript or a published article, the editor-in-chief has to adopt reasonable retaliatory measures. This usually includes informing the author, discussing the complaint, and, if necessary, publishing corrections. Each case of scientific ethics violation has to be investigated, even if it is revealed many years after publication.

Code of Ethics for Editorial Board

  1. The editorial board ensures the high scientific quality of published articles and largely determines the formation of the authors’ team and the portfolio of publications. The editorial board should consider all submitted manuscripts for publication, without prejudice to their respective authors (national or religious affiliation, social status, etc.).
  2. When making a decision on publication, the editorial board is guided by the expert evaluation of peer reviewers, the reliability of the data presented, and the scientific significance of the work.
  3. If the author of a manuscript is a member of the editorial board, he/she has to delegate his rights with respect to the consideration of this manuscript to another qualified person.
  4. The editorial board reserves the selection of anonymous peer reviewers and their number in order to ensure an impartial peer review of a manuscript. No one, except for those involved in the professional evaluation of the manuscript, has access to its contents.
  5. In case of rejection of a manuscript or the need for its revision, the editorial board has to provide sufficient evidence for such a decision to the authors of the article.
  6. The information contained in an unpublished manuscript may be used only with the consent of its authors.
  7. The editorial board does not disclose the information on received manuscripts to anyone except for the peer reviewers and the editorial team.
  8. If there is sufficient evidence against the published materials the editorial board has to publish an error report signed by those who found it out.
  9. It is not allowed publishing information if there are sufficiently strong evidences that it is plagiarism.
  10. Complaints concerning considered manuscripts or published materials cannot be left unanswered by the editorial board. In identifying conflict, the editorial board should take all necessary measures to restore the violated copyrights.

Code of Ethics for Authors

  1. The authors are the persons who have made a significant contribution to the statement and solution of the problem considered in the article and share responsibility for the obtained results. The author, who has submitted the manuscript for publication, takes responsibility for coordinating with other authors the choice of a periodical for its publication and the accuracy of the contact information.
  2. The authorship should be limited to those who contributed significantly to the conception, planning, performance, or interpretation of the reported research. If any person has participated in the performance of a substantial part of the project, he/she should be acknowledged or included in the list of co-authors.
  3. The authors are responsible for the originality and reliability of the submitted material. This material is not supposed to have been previously published or sent to other periodicals for parallel publishing, and also it is not supposed to contain plagiarism.
  4. An article can be published in different editions if it is translated into another language. It is required to have the consent of the authors and publishers for republishing, reflecting the original text as precisely as possible and accompanied by the obligatory reference to the first edition.
  5. If the authors have used the work and/or text fragments of other authors, they should provide the appropriate references to the published works.
  6. The editors may reject the article if it violates the intellectual rights of the third parties, the rules of scientific ethics or contains the information with limited access; notifying the authors and the organization that submitted the article.
  7. The authors of the article should provide within its limited scope an objective assessment of the problem being solved; this assessment should be based on the analysis of previous publications essential to this work; the authors should show the validity and significance of the results, as well as provide an accurate description of proposed methods to achieve the objectives, and prove the importance of the study.
  8. A series of articles, in which the results of complex research are published, should be organized so that the reader could get a comprehensive view of the structure of the research as a whole and every aspect highlighted in the corresponding article.
  9. The source of financial support of the corresponding research can be specified in the submitted manuscript unless otherwise provided by the current legislation or agreement with the sponsors.
  10. Authors should accommodate valid criticisms about the article made ​​by the editorial board and/or peer reviewers within the deadlines established by the editorial team.
  11. The criticism of previous researches containing in the article should not have a personal character.
  12. If the author finds out a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her work, he/she has to notify immediately the editorial board and make corrections to the manuscript.
  13. If the analysis of the problem is based on confidential information (personal communication, peer reviewing manuscripts, grants, etc.), this information cannot be published without the consent of the persons who are its sources.
  14. Authors have the right to use freely the published material and republish it in any other media, but they have to provide a reference to the first publication of the material.
  15. The author has to inform the editorial board and the editorial team of any conflict of interest, including administrative, financial, and research ones related to his/her work. The editorial team should take it into account when arranging peer reviewing and deciding on the publication of the corresponding manuscript.
  16. Publication of someone else’s manuscript (or its part) under the author’s name, quote or paraphrase its content without reference to the source of borrowing, as well as other forms of misappropriation of another’s research results are considered as plagiarism. Plagiarism in any form contradicts scientific ethics and is unacceptable.
  17. Persons found guilty of plagiarism are deprived of the possibility of publication in the periodical. The editorial board of the journal can publicize the recorded cases of plagiarism.
  18. In case of acceptance of an article to publication it is placed in the public domain, the author’s copyright is reserved.
  19. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts conflicts of interest, including financial conflicts that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions reported in the paper.

Code of Ethics for Reviewers

  1. The scientific examination of the author’s materials which is carried out by the peer reviewer has to be objective and impartial and consider the compliance of the performed work to the scientific, ethical (lack of plagiarism, no conflict of interest), and literary standards.
  2. Each article passes two levels of peer reviewing: by the members of the editorial board and at least by two independent external anonymous experts who have all opportunities to state motivated critical remarks concerning the level and clarity of the presented material, its compliance to the journal profile, novelty, and reliability of results.
  3. The peer reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript should include a justification of his/her conclusions. If the peer reviewer claims that data containing in the manuscript were published earlier, he/she has to confirm it with the corresponding links.
  4. The personal criticism of authors of an article and the use of slanderous arguments discrediting authors are inadmissible in the peer review.
  5. In the presence of a conflict of interest, a discrepancy of researches containing in the manuscript to the sphere of the scientific competence, existence of professional communications with authors which can affect the objectivity of the peer review, or if the work cannot be done within a deadline, the peer reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board and refuse to evaluate the manuscript.
  6. The peer reviewer has to observe requirements of confidentiality, not use the unpublished materials in his/her own researches.
  7. The peer reviewer may hand on the manuscript to another person for consultation with the consent of the editorial board.
  8. Peer reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in case of conflict of interest due to the competitive relations and interactions with any of the authors and/or organizations associated with the submitted work.