Ethics of Scientific Publications

We expect the authors to present reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The underlying research data should be clearly stated in writing. The article should contain enough information to verify and repeat experiments by other researchers. Fraudulent or knowingly false statements amount to unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide input for an editorial review. They should be prepared to provide open access to such data, if this is possible, and in any case, should be prepared to maintain the source materials for a reasonable period of time after their publication.

Authors should provide only original work. When using textual or graphic information obtained from the works of others, references to the relevant publications or the written permission of the author are required. Any kind of plagiarism is regarded as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors should indicate that their work is being published for the first time. If elements of the manuscript were previously published in another article, authors are obliged to refer to an earlier work and indicate what is the essential difference between the new work and the previous one. Verbatim copying of one’s own works and their paraphrasing is unacceptable, they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions. Submitting an article to more than one journal at the same time is regarded as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors are required to acknowledge the contributions of others who have influenced the nature of the research presented. Bibliographic references to the works used are required. Information obtained privately, through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used without obtaining open written permission from their source.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the claimed research. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who participated in some significant aspects of the research project should be shown on the list of project participants. The author must ensure that the names of all co-authors and participants of the project are placed on the lists of co-authors and participants, and that all co-authors familiarize themselves with the final version of the scientific work and approve it, and also give their consent to its publication.

The editors ask the authors to adhere to the principles of bioethics in the study of animal objects.

All authors should disclose in their works information on any financial and other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the study or their interpretation. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, he is obliged to immediately notify the editor or publisher of the journal and help them eliminate or correct the error. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author must immediately remove or correct them, or submit to the editorial board evidence of the correctness of the original article.

Submission of the article for consideration implies that it contains the new non-trivial scientific results obtained by the authors, which have not been published anywhere before. Each article is peer-reviewed. Peer review takes place according to a “double blind” scheme, when both the reviewer and the author do not know each other. Experts have every opportunity to freely express reasoned criticisms regarding the level and clarity of presentation of the material presented, the novelty and reliability of the results. The recommendations of reviewers are the basis for making a final decision on the publication of an article. Responsibility for the decision to publish lies entirely with the editorial board. The editors make the decision to publish, guided by the policy of the journal, taking into account current legislation in the field of copyright. The editors evaluate manuscripts solely by their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political views of the authors. An article, if accepted for publication, is publicly available; copyrights reserved by the authors.

The editor and all editorial staff do not have the right to disclose information about the submitted work to anyone other than the relevant authors, reviewers, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher. The editor and editorial staff are not allowed to use the unpublished materials used in the provided manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author.

In the event of a conflict of interest as a result of competition, cooperation, or other relations and relations with one of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submitted manuscripts, the editor hands over the manuscript for consideration to another member of the editorial board. Editors should request disclosure of existing competing interests from all participants in the process. If the competition of interests was revealed after the publication of the article, the editors are obliged to ensure the publication of amendments. When submitting an ethical complaint regarding the submitted manuscript or published article, the editor must take reasonable retaliatory measures in collaboration with the publisher (or the public). Each report of unethical behavior will be considered, even if it came years after the publication of the article. If the complaint is supported, the publication of appropriate corrections, rebuttals or apologies should follow.

Expert assessment helps the editor in making editorial decisions and through the cooperation of the editor and the author can help the author to improve his work.

Any reviewer selected to evaluate the work, who believes that his qualifications are insufficient to review the research presented in the scientific work, or knows that its review speed will be too slow, should notify the editor and refuse the review process.

Any manuscript submitted for examination should be treated as a confidential document. It is inadmissible to show it to other reviewers or discuss with other experts without prior permission from the editor-in-chief.

Reviews of scientific papers should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and reasonably.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work in peer-reviewed material that has not been cited by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have already been used previously in any publication should be appropriately formatted as citations. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the attention of the editor to a substantial or partial similarity with any other work with which the reviewer is directly familiar.

Unpublished materials used in the provided manuscript should not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Non-public information or ideas obtained during peer review should remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not be involved in reviewing and evaluating manuscripts in which they are personally interested.