Publishing ethics

Presented principles of ethical behavior are obligatory for all parties involved in the process for reviewing and publication of scientific articles: author (s), reviewers, editors, editorial board and the publisher.

  • Authors, reviewers, publishers and readers of academic publications should be polite, tactful, avoid conflicts in the process of cooperation, solving problems in a creative, constructive and productive manner.
  • Intentional attribution of authorship of another work of science, other people's ideas and inventions, data falsification are forbidden. Plagiarism is a violation of copyright and patent law, and may entail legal liability.
  • The article must be original, contain an element of new knowledge and be provided for publication for the first time.
  • Unpublished data obtained from submitted for consideration articles should not be used or transferred to third parties without the written permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained during peer review and editing related to the potential benefits must be kept confidential and not be used for personal gain.
  • The author (or group of authors) of publication is responsible for the accuracy of the results of scientific research. Borrowed fragments or statements must be executed with the obligatory indication of the author and source. Excessive borrowings and plagiarism in any form, including unregistered quotes, paraphrasing or assignment of rights to the results of other scientists’ studies are unethical and unacceptable.
  • The list of co-authors of the article should include all the persons who have made a significant contribution to the study.
  • The author has the right to know the results of the review and the reviewer comments and eliminate the shortcomings found by the reviewer or editor.
  • If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article on the stage of examination or after its publication, he/she must notify Editor of this as soon as possible.
  • Reviewer provides scientific expertise of copyright materials considering them as a confidential document, which can not be transferred for review or discussion to the third parties who do not have the permission from the editorial board to execute it.
  • The reviewer is required to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the results of the stated study. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
  • Reviewer’s right to remain anonymous must be respected.
  • The reviewer who does not have, in his opinion, necessary skills to evaluate the manuscript or may not be objective, should inform the editor with the request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.
  • The chief editor of the scientific journal when deciding on publication must be guided by fair presentation of the data and scientific significance of the work in question.
  • The chief editor should evaluate intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, social status or political preferences of the authors.
  • Editor-in-chief and the publisher should not leave without an answer claims related to reviewed manuscripts or published materials, while after the detection of a conflict they should take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights.