Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 Our journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct
The journal follows the COPE general guidelines as well (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).

Duties of Editors

1. Editors should evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of its academic merit and the relevance to the scope of the journal.

2. Ensure the quality of published material through peer-review.

3. Assigning reviewers to the respective articles.

4. Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, potential reviewers, editorial members.

5. Editors should avoid situations of any possible conflicts of interest in which the relationship could bias judgement of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated.

6. Editors should provide reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal's expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews.

7. Editors should respect the intellectual independence of the author(s).

 

Authors responsibilities.    Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research as previously published. Parallel submission of the same text to different journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Our Editorial Board currently uses the Plagiarism Checker 'Unicheck' for all the manuscripts.
Authorship of the Paper: All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. The author submitting the manuscript to the journal ensures that all contributing co- authors and no uninvolved person(s) are included in the author list.

Responsibilities of reviewers

All manuscripts of ''Visnyk of V.N.Karazin Kharkiv National University. Ser. Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Mechanics'' are peer-reviewed

Single-blind peer review: reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don't know the identity of reviewers.

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential materials.

We ask all the reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. The reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Peer review assists editors in making decisions and to comment authors in order to improve their manuscripts.
Any statement should have the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any essential similarity between the manuscript and other published data.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Referees advice to the Editor could be ''accept'', ''minor revision'', ''major revision'' or ''reject''.

We also ask the reviewer to evaluate the manuscript on the following 1-5 point scale: Excellent: 5, Very good: 4, Good: 3, Average: 2, Poor: 1.

We ask the reviewer to send the report simultanuously in two forms. The first one is unnamed (to be forwarded to authors and other parties of editorial process). The second one is a scanned report with the signature, name and date. The second form may include the part 'Confidential Comments to the Editor', if necessary. Any comments you don’t wish to share with the authors should be in this part only. Both forms are treated as confidential documents.

For more information, see COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

We are thankful for reviewers efforts and advice!