Publication Ethics

The development of publication ethics by the Editorial Board of an electronic scientific professional edition takes into account the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the experience of other scientific organizations and publications.

Ethic obligations of editors:

1. All materials given for publication pass a careful selection and criticizing. Editorial Board of the collection has a right to decline the article or return it on a revision.
2. An editor must without prejudice examine all manuscripts, presented to the publication, estimating each properly, without regard to racial, confessional, national and political belonging, and also social position or job of author (-ors).
3. An editor must as quick as possible examine manuscripts, presented to the publication.
4. All responsibility for an acceptance or rejection of a manuscript to the publication lies exceptionally on an editor. The responsible and impartial going provides for near implementation of these duties, that an editor takes into account recommendation of a reviewer – specialist of corresponding scientific area – in relation to quality and authenticity of manuscript, given to the publication. However, the article can be declined without criticizing, if an editor sets that they do not answer the type of collection.
5. An editor and members of Editorial Board give no information to other persons, related to maintenance of manuscript which is on consideration, except persons which participate in professional estimation of the real article.
6. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
7. The responsibility and rights of the editor of an electronic scientific professional collection in respect of any submitted manuscript, authored by the editor himself, shall be delegated to any other qualified person.
8. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of a work published in the collection are incorrect, the editor should facilitate the publication of a relevant message indicating that error and, if possible, correct it. This message may be written by the person who detected the error or by an independent author.

Ethic obligations of authors:

1. The basic duty of author consists in giving the exact description of the conducted research, and also objectively present its scientific novelty and practical meaningfulness.
2. Primary report about the results of a research must be complete enough and contain necessary references to the accessible information sources.
3. The authors of articles carry all responsibility for maintenance of the articles. The results of the study reported in the article should be reliable.
4. The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence on the nature of the papers, as well as those that can quickly acquaint the reader with earlier articles which are important to understanding this study. With the exception of reviews, references to works that are not directly related to the article submitted should be minimized. The author is required to conduct a source search to find and cite original publications that describe studies closely related to this article. The sources and literature used in this work should referenced if these materials were not obtained by the author himself.
5. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who performs extensive research on a system or group of related systems should arrange for the publication so that each part gives a complete picture of each aspect of the overall study.
6. At preparing a manuscript, the author shall inform the editor of previous publications or manuscripts of the author submitted or it was accepted for printing. Copies of these manuscripts must be submitted to the editor and its links to the manuscript submitted for publication must be indicated.
7. An author shall not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results in more than one journal in the form of a primary publication, unless this is a re-submission of the journal rejected or withdrawn by the author. Suppose that you submit a manuscript of a complete article that extends the previously published short preliminary report (notice) about the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor must be advised that it is an extension or continuation of the study, and this prior notice must be cited in the manuscript.
8. The author should clearly indicate the sources of all cited or presented information, except for well-known information. Information obtained privately, in the course of a conversation, in correspondence or in discussion with another persons, should not be used or communicated in the work of the author without the permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained. Information received from providing confidential services, such as when reviewing manuscripts, should be treated in the same way.
9. The co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the presented work and who share responsibility for the obtained results. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the "Acknowledgments". The administrative relations with this study isn`t the basis for qualifying the person concerned as a co-author (but in some cases it may be appropriate to note significant administrative assistance in the work). Persons who have died and met the above criteria should be included in the authors list and the date of their death should be noted in the note. The author who submits the manuscript to a publication is responsible for ensuring that the list of contributors includes all those persons who meet the criteria for authorship. In an article written by several authors, one of the authors, who submits editorial contact information, documents and correspondence with the editors, takes responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article to its publication in the edition.
10. The personal criticism of scholars cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances. However, published articles may, in appropriate situations, criticize theoretical research material.
11. Authors should advise the editor of any potential conflict of interest. Authors should ensure that no contractual or proprietary considerations exist that could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.

Ethic obligations of reviewers:

1. A reviewer always must objectively estimate the quality of a manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and exposition of the material, and also to take into account, how maintenance of the article answers the scientific and lingually-stylistic standards; to respect intellectual independence of authors.
2. If a selected reviewer is not sure that his scientific qualification answers the level of researches, presented in a manuscript, he must at once give back a manuscript.
3. A reviewer must take into account a possibility of conflict of interests in the case when a manuscript is given to him close related to his current or published work. If there are doubts, a reviewer must at once turn a manuscript without a review, saying about the conflict of interests.
4. If the reviewer guesses who is the author or co-author of the manuscript and is therefore unable to carry out an impartial and objective independent examination of the manuscript, he must suspend the review and inform the Executive Secretary of the electronic scientific collection of the impossibility of further work.
5. The reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions to editors and authors. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.
6. The reviewer should note any instances of insufficient citation by the authors of the work of other scholars directly related to the peer-reviewed work; however, it should be borne in mind that comments about the citation of a reviewer's own research may not seem biased. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another edition at the same time.
7. A reviewer must give a review in time.
8. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may be unsuccessful, termination of such work by the reviewer is not contrary to ethical standards.
9. The seriousness of the accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to adequately and reasonably justify his or her own comments. Any allegation of plagiarism or biased citation should be accompanied by a link (the reviewer's findings should not be unreasonable or defamatory without serious grounds for doing so).
10. If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of the data, he should without fail ask the Editorial Board for a collective review of the author's article.
11. As the reviewer should note any instances of insufficient citation by the authors of the articles of other scholars in the field of the peer-reviewed article, comments regarding the citation of the reviewer's own research are identified as biased.
12. Maintaining the periodicity of the publication of a collection requires a reviewer of high self-discipline, which is revealed due to the timely submission of reviews for the article and in respect to the authors of the article (in the case of indifference to the authors or systematic submission of reviews of bad quality or breach of review periods this reviewer is terminated).