Ethics of scientific publications

The ethics of scientific publications is understood as a system of standards of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers and editors of the Publishing House in the process of creating scientific publications.
These standards are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, and international publishing standards.
The publishing house in its activities undertakes to strictly follow the ethical principles of scientific publications and requires their compliance from all participants in the publishing process.

Principles that should guide the author of scientific publications
The author (or team of authors) is aware that he bears primary responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which presupposes compliance with the following principles:

• The authors of the article must provide reliable results of research conducted that have scientific novelty. Claims that are known to be erroneous or falsified are unacceptable.
• Authors must ensure that the research results reported in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be formalized with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unquoted, paraphrased, or appropriation of the results of others' research, is unethical and unacceptable.
• It is necessary to acknowledge the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the study, in particular, the article should provide links to works that were important in the conduct of the study.
• Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been submitted to another journal and is under review, or an article that has already been published in another journal.
• Co-authors of the article must include all persons who made a significant contribution to the research. Among co-authors, it is unacceptable to indicate persons who did not participate in the study.
• If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must notify the editors of the journal as soon as possible.

Principles of professional ethics in the activities of an editor and publisher
In his activities, the editor, as a representative of the Publishing House, preparing materials for publication, is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which leads to the need to follow the following fundamental principles:

• When making a decision on publication, the editor of a scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data presented and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.
• The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.
• Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author.
• Information or ideas obtained during editing related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.
• The editor should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarized.
• The editor should under no circumstances force the author to cite the scientific journals of the Publisher as a necessary condition for accepting the manuscript for publication.
• The editor, together with the publisher, must not leave unanswered claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and also, if a conflict situation is identified, they must take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights.

Ethical principles in the activities of a reviewer
The reviewer, as an expert acting on behalf of the Publishing House, carries out a scientific examination of copyright materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication, as a result of which his actions must be unbiased, consisting in compliance with the following principles:

• A manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document that cannot be passed on for review or discussion to third parties not authorized by the editor.
• The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the presented research results. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
• Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review should not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
• A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the editor about this and ask to be excluded from the review process of this manuscript.