The policy on publication ethics and avoiding publication malpractice is based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

 

The editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published and may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

 

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

 

The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers, and other members of editorial board, as appropriate.

Editorial board treats as unacceptable use of unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in an editor's or reviewers own research without the express written consent of the author.

 

Editors and other members of the editorial board should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require potential reviewers to disclose relevant competing interests. In this case other reviewers will be involved in reviewing process.

 

The editor may take corresponding investigation when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper and make a decision on publishing of its results.

 

 

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 manuscript.

 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

 

Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

 

A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. If a reviewer realizes absence of references in submitted manuscript to relevant published work it should by pointed out in a review.

 

Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships connected to the submission.

 

 

A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data(consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), ifpracticable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

 

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

In case of submitting of already published paper an author should notify the editor and receive an approval from the editor of the journal, where it has been published. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

 

Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

 

When an author discovers or learns from a third party about a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.