Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

All participants in the publication process must adhere to the standards of ethical conduct set out below.

  1. Introduction
    1.1. Publishing materials in a journal is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publisher and Scientific Society for the journal.

1.2. These guidelines are designed specifically for the presentation of primary research, but can also be used for reviews and other professional publications.

  1. Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. Publication decision

The editor of a scientific journal is personally and independently responsible for making decisions about publication, in collaboration with the relevant Editorial Board of the journal. The credibility of the work under review and its scientific significance should always form the basis of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board, subject to current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers  when deciding to publish.

2.2. Decency

The Editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The Editor and the Editorial Board are obliged not to unnecessarily disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other Scientific Advisors and the Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely, request a Co-Editor, Associate Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of personally reviewing and making a decision) in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions and relationships with the Authors, companies and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

2.5. Publication supervision

2.5.1. An editor who provides convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous must report this to the Publisher for prompt notice of changes, withdrawals, expressions of concern, and other appropriate statements.

2.6. Engagement and collaboration within research

2.6.1. The Editor, together with the Publisher, takes adequate response measures in the event of ethical claims relating to the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Influence on the decisions of the Editorial Board

3.1.1. Reviewing helps the Editor make decisions about publication and, through appropriate interaction with Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is an essential part of formal scientific communication.

3.2. Performance

3.2.1. Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review a manuscript or does not have sufficient time to complete the work quickly must notify the Editor and request to be excluded from the review process for the relevant manuscript.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as confidential. This work must not be opened or discussed with any persons not authorized to do so by the Editor.

3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with reason.

3.5. Acknowledgment of primary sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that is relevant to the topic and not included in the manuscript’s bibliography. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published must have an appropriate bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The Reviewer should also bring to the Editor’s attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work within the Reviewer’s area of expertise.

3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions or relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1. Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1 Authors of original research reports must provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient detail and bibliographical references for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective, the point of view of the Editorial Board must be clearly stated.

4.2. Data access and storage

Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from the Authors for review by the Editors. Authors should be willing to provide open access to this type of information (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if feasible, and in any case be willing to retain these data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors must ensure that the work presented is entirely original and, when using the work or statements of other Authors, must provide appropriate bibliographical references or excerpts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else’s work as original, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else’s work (without attribution), to claiming rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and will not be tolerated.

4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

4.4.1 In general, an Author should not publish a manuscript largely devoted to the same study in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.

4.4.3. Publishing a certain type of article (eg, clinical practice guidelines, translational articles) in more than one journal is, in some cases, ethical, provided certain conditions are met. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the primary published work. A bibliography of the primary work must also be presented in the second publication. More information on acceptable forms of secondary (re)publication can be found at

4.5. Acknowledgment of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the work presented. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as manuscript evaluation or grant awards, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of the publication

4.6.1 Authors of a publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. Where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of the research project, they should be listed as significant contributors to that research.

4.6.2. The author must ensure that all participants who made significant contributions to the study are listed as Co-Authors and that those who did not participate in the study are not listed as Co-Authors, and that all Co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agree to its submission for publication.

4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals who are objects of research

4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemicals, procedures or equipment that pose any unusual risk, the Author must clearly indicate this in the manuscript.

4.7.2 If the work involves animals or humans as research subjects, Authors must ensure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the study comply with the laws and regulations of research organizations, and are approved by the appropriate committees. The manuscript must clearly state that informed consent has been obtained from all subjects studied. Privacy rights must be respected at all times.

4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, equity ownership, receipt of honoraria, provision of expert testimony, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Significant errors in published works

If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Journal Editor or Publisher and interact with the Editor in order to promptly withdraw the publication or correct errors. If the Editor or Publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

  1. Responsibilities of the Publisher

5.1 The Publisher shall follow principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical responsibilities by Editors, Reviewers and Authors in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must be confident that potential profits from advertising or the production of reprints do not influence the Editors’ decisions.

5.2. The Publisher must support the Journal Editors in addressing ethical concerns about published materials and assist in collaborating with other journals and/or Publishers if this facilitates the Editors’ duties.

5.3. The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retractions, and correction procedures.

5.4 The Publisher shall provide appropriate specialist legal support (opinion or advice) where necessary.

  1. Borrowing and plagiarism

When reviewing an article, the journal’s editorial board can check the material using the Anti-Plagiarism system. If numerous borrowings are detected, the editors act in accordance with the COPE rules.

  1. Consideration of deviations from established ethical standards

7.1. Identification of ethical deviation

7.1.1. Illegal or unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor-in-chief and publisher at any stage of the publication process.

7.1.2. Anyone who informs an editor or publisher of ethical deviations must provide sufficient information and evidence. All applications and appeals will be accepted, reviewed and processed.

7.2. Investigation

7.2.1. The decision to conduct an investigation is made by the editor, who, if necessary, can seek assistance from the publisher.

7.2.2. It is necessary to collect evidence while avoiding any accusations.

7.3. Consequences of identified deviations from ethical standards

7.3.1. Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

7.3.1. 1. they have clear evidence that the published information is unreliable, either as a result of deliberate actions (for example, falsification of data) or due to honest errors (for example, errors in calculations or experiments); the findings were previously published in another publication without proper citations, permissions, or justification for republication (i.e., duplicate publication); it is plagiarism; describes unethical research.

7.3. 2. Journal editors should consider raising concerns if: have received information about inappropriate actions of the authors, but there is no clear evidence of such behavior; there are arguments that the results of the work are unreliable, and the institution in which the authors work is not going to find out the truth; they believe that an investigation into the alleged violations committed by the authors in connection with the publication either has not been or will not be carried out

fair, impartial and persuasive; An investigation into the authors’ violations is ongoing, but its results are not expected soon enough.

7.3.3. Journal editors should consider making amendments if: a small portion of an otherwise high-quality publication turns out to be unreliable (especially due to honest errors); the list of authors/funders contains errors (that is, it does not include someone who is worthy of being an author, or a person who does not meet the criteria for authorship was included in it).

7.3.4. In most cases, a review is not appropriate if: a change in authorship is required, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the conclusions.

  1. Withdrawal of articles

8.1. Withdrawal of an already published article is a last resort and is used in the event of discovery of facts that were not known during the review:

8.1.1. identifying facts of violation of the law and defamation;

8.1.2. detection of false or inaccurate data, especially those the use of which may pose a health risk.

8.2. Article retraction mechanism

8.2.1. Authors, readers, reviewers, editors and publishing houses can initiate the withdrawal of an article by writing to the editorial office of the journal.

8.2.2. The journal’s Conflict Resolution Commission reviews the received appeal.

8.2.3. The decision to withdraw a published article is made by the journal’s conflict resolution committee if there are sufficient facts in favor of withdrawal.

8.2.4. The Conflict Resolution Commission notifies the initiator of the withdrawal of the article about the results of consideration of the appeal in writing.

8.2.5. If the commission decides to withdraw an article, the journal publishes information that the article has been withdrawn, indicating the metadata of the article.

8.2.6. If articles from the journal are indexed by any databases, a letter is sent to these databases stating that the article has been withdrawn, indicating the reasons for the withdrawal.