The relationship between authors, the editorial board, and reviewers in the journal is based on the principles of academic collegiality, integrity, objectivity, and the primacy of scientific quality. The journal adheres to the principles of the Code of Conduct for Editors established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular:

Fair Play. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their scientific quality, regardless of the author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political views.

Elimination of Libel and Copyright Infringement. The journal rejects any material that violates rules regarding defamation or copyright infringement.

Editors Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief follows the journal’s editorial policy and consults with other editors and reviewers regarding decisions on publication.

Editors

• have full authority to reject or accept the article, guided by objective scientific criteria and the conclusions of reviewers;
• guarantee the quality of materials that they publish or approve for publication;
• contribute to the correction of errors found or reject materials in the event that such correction is impossible for one reason or another;
• should identify any conflicts of interest;
• should ensure the confidentiality of information relating to submitted manuscripts;
• undertake to defend the freedom of scientific expression;
• should provide anonymity of reviewers.

If editors have any doubts regarding the authenticity, originality, or ethical integrity of a submitted paper, its publication shall be postponed until all concerns are resolved. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author.

See Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors

Authors Responsibilities

Authors must:

• ensure that they have written truly original works;
• have significant contribution to the research (if a paper has several authors);
• guarantee obtained permission for use of copyrighted materials;
• certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
• identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript;
• disclose in their manuscript any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the assessment of their manuscript.

Information obtained privately by authors – such as through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties – must not be used or reported without the explicit written consent of the source. By submitting an article to the editorial board, authors agree that, in the event of publication in the print version of the Journal, their text will also be automatically published in the online version of the Journal under open access.

See Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors

Reviewers Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• notify editorial board of any conflicts of interests that may determine their findings;
• protect the confidentiality of information relating to the manuscript;
• be objective and constructive in their reviews.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in reviewers’ own research without the explicit written consent of the author.

See COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

 

PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING COMPLAINTS CONCERNING BREACHES OF SCIENTIFIC ETHICS

The Editorial Board of the journal considers complaints regarding violations of scientific ethics on the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, and diligence, guided by COPE recommendations:

1. Receipt of Complaint

Complaints may pertain to suspected misconduct in both submitted manuscripts and previously published articles. The submission must include a detailed description of the situation and a relevant evidence base.

2. Preliminary Assessment

The Editorial Board conducts an initial review of the complaint to establish the existence of factual grounds and the feasibility of further consideration.

3. Investigation

The Editor-in-Chief contacts the respective author(s) with a request for explanations and evidence. If necessary, external experts or authorized representatives of scientific institutions may be involved in the process.

4. Resolution of the Case

If a violation is confirmed during the peer-review stage, the manuscript shall be rejected.

If a violation is identified after the materials have been published, the Editorial Board shall take appropriate measures: publication of a correction (erratum), provision of clarifications, or retraction of the article.

5. Lack of Response or Unsatisfactory Explanations

In the event that a request is ignored within the established timeframe or if unsubstantiated explanations are provided, the journal reserves the right to decide on the retraction of the publication or to apply other corrective measures.

6. Notification of the Complainant and Conclusion of Proceedings

The complainant is informed of the results of the review. The case is considered closed once all necessary measures have been implemented.