Ethics publications and unfair practices in connection with publications
PRINCIPLES PROFESSIONAL ETHICS IN THE WORK OF THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
- All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. A publisher reserves the right to reject a manuscript or return it as requiring improvement. The author is obliged to improve the manuscript according to the remarks of the reviewers and the editor.
- An editor should considerate all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
- An editor should consider manuscript submitted for publication without delays.
- The whole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of an article rests with the editor. Responsible and reasonable approach to the duty requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, Doctor of Science of required specialty, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication.
- The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. After a positive decision of the editor, the monograph is issued and posted on the appropriate electronic resources.
- An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
- Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to other qualified person, such as a member of its Editorial Board.
- If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of the published report are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.
- An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript. This might be the case, for example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.
- Please note that the decision to index the monograph in databases and other indexing resources does not depend on the publisher and is not part of the publishing process. By submitting a manuscript for publication, the author agrees that at the time of publication of the issue with the published author’s monograph, the indexation in any of the databases and other resources for indexing can be changed. The pubisher guarantees the placement of relevant information about indexing.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE REVIEWER WORK
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. That is why actions of a reviewer should be unbiased.
- As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
- A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
- A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest.
- A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
- A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
- Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.
- A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published monograph.
- A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.
- Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work.
PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE AUTHOR OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
Authors realize that they are responsible for novelty and faithfulness of research results.
- Main duty of an author is to present an accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
- A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. When requested, the authors should make a reasonable effort to provide samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere, with appropriate material transfer agreements to restrict the field of use of the materials so as to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
- An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non author.
- Any unusual hazards appearing during an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.
- Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study.
- In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.
- An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.
- The co-authors of a manuscript should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.
- The authors should reveal to the editor and to the readers of the journal any potential and/or relevant competing financial or other interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. All authors should not have any personal significant financial interest and employment or other relationship with entities that have a financial or other interest which can affect the results described by the manuscript.
ACTIONS IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF PUBLICATION ETHICS
If there is a suspicion that the reviewer has appropriated the ideas or data of the author:
The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme «What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data»
- This case can only be considered if documentary evidence from the author and / or other sources is provided, for example, publication, abstract, meeting report, copy of slides, grant application. And after examining the evidence (or contacting a specialist with the appropriate qualifications for this) and deciding whether the claims of the author and/or other sources are valid.
- If the allegation has been proven, a request for investigation will be submitted to the reviewer and the institution of which he is an employee.
- Links between the accused and the named reviewer will also be checked, such as the same department, personal relationships, and other conflicts of interest.
- If the reviewer's guilt is proven, he will be permanently removed from the publisher's database.
- If the borrowed idea or data has been published in another source, a request will be made to the relevant publication sources asking them to accept the withdrawal policy of the published material.
If there are suspicions of ethical issues with the submitted manuscript:
The algorithm of actions is based on the COPE scheme «What to do if you suspect an ethical problem»
- Such suspicion may arise if, for example, there is a lack of ethical approval / concern regarding patient consent or protection / concern regarding animal experiments, etc.
- A request will be made to the contributing author to provide relevant details (for example, an ethics committee certificate or a copy of informed consent documents).
- If the relevant documents are not provided, the manuscript will be rejected and will not be published, and the case will be referred for investigation to the institution of which the author(s) is (are).