Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice

1. Ethical expectations

The Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, authors, and reviewers follow the ethical norms which include but not restricted by the following.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members

  • are responsible for everything published in the journal. They should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve the journal; ensure the quality of the material published;
  • provide an unbiased, objective consideration of the submitted manuscripts irrespective of the author' place of employment and residence, their religious ethnic, and political affiliation;
  • respect the scientific opinion of the authors and do not disclose the contents of the submissions to anyone except for the potential reviewers;
  • select the reviewers from among the highly qualified experts in the scientific field corresponding to the submission and ensure a blind review process;
  • when selecting the reviewers, avoid the known or expected conflict of interests which might lead to biased evaluation of the manuscript; exclude reviewing the manuscript by the co-authors of previous publications, persons administratively subordinated to any co-author, and scientists who currently are or have recently been the research supervisors of any co-author;
  • do not use the data, results, or interpretation contained in the submitted manuscripts without permission of the authors;

The reviewers, by accepting the invitation to review the manuscript, agree

  • to consider the submitted manuscript in unbiased and objective manner, provide an evaluation of the manuscript taking into account the novelty and validity of the presented data and results and compliance of the submission with the world standards and the scope of the Journal;
  • if having obtained a reasonable evidence of erroneous data, results, or their interpretation been published, inform the readers and make the appropriate corrections whenever possible;
  • Editors' decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality, and clarity, and the study's relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • to report the revealed facts of plagiarism and repeated submission of the material that has been already published in another journal; check if the author gives proper references to the related previous work;
  • in the case of the conflict of interests or if this conflict is revealed in the course of reviewing, to resign immediately reviewing the manuscript;
  • not to use in their own research the data, results, or interpretation presented in the reviewed submission without receiving permission of the authors;
  • not to disclose the information on the materials submitted to the Journal.

The authors :

  • take full responsibility for the reliability and validity of the presented materials;
  • avoid plagiarism and multiple submission/publication of the same manuscripts;
  • give proper references to the previous publications, databases, and other sources of information used in the manuscript, and acknowledge the financial support provided for the study;
  • include in the list of the authors all the persons substantially contributed to the study and do not include those who were not involved in the study;
  • timely, correctly, and ad rem reply to the reviewers' comments and recommendations arising at the stage of manuscript editing and preparation of the artwork;
  • inform the JournalEditorial Board on the errors detected in the submitted or published materials and provide the appropriate corrections whenever possible.

2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Identification of unethical behaviour

  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the Editor or Editorial Board at any time, by anyone.
  • Whoever informs the Editor or Editorial Board of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.


  • An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the Editorial Board, if appropriate.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.


  • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

The following measures may be applied separately or in conjunction:

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.