All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to finalize the article in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board.
The editor must without prejudice consider all manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, as well as the position or place of work of the author (authors).
The editor should review the manuscripts submitted for publication as soon as possible.
All responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript lies with the editor. A responsible and balanced approach to the performance of these duties usually means that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer - a specialist in the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and authenticity of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor considers that they do not fit the profile of the collection.
The editor and members of the editorial board shall not provide other persons with any information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for persons involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After a positive decision of the editor, the article is published in a collection and placed on the relevant electronic resources.
The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
The responsibility and rights of the editor of the collection in respect of any submitted manuscript authored by the editor himself shall be delegated to any other qualified person.
If the editor is provided with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the collection are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of an appropriate message indicating this error and, if possible, correct it. This message can be written by the person who discovered the error or by an independent author.
The author may request that the editor not use some reviewers when reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if he or she feels that their views are important to the impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision may be made, for example, when there are serious inconsistencies between this manuscript and the previous work of a potential reviewer.
Ethical obligations of authors
The main duty of the author is to provide an accurate report on the research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
The volume of the collection is a limited resource, so the author must use it wisely and economically.
The initial report on the results of the study should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary references to available sources of information so that experts in this field can repeat this work.
The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive impact on the essence of the work taught, as well as those that can quickly acquaint the reader with earlier works that are important for understanding this study. With the exception of reviews, citations of papers that are not directly relevant to this report should be minimized. The author is required to conduct a literature search to find and cite original publications that describe research closely related to this report. It is also necessary to properly indicate the sources of fundamentally important materials used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the author.
The work clearly indicates any dangerous manifestations and risks associated with the research.
Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who conducts extensive research on a system or group of related systems should organize the publication so that each report gives a complete report on each aspect of the overall study.
When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor of the author's related manuscripts submitted or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts must be submitted to the editor, and their links to the manuscript submitted for publication must be indicated.
The author should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results in more than one collection in the form of an initial publication, unless it is a re-submission of a manuscript rejected by the collection or withdrawn by the author. Suppose you submit a manuscript of a full article that expands on a previously published brief preliminary report (notice) on the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor must be notified of the earlier notice, and this prior notice must be quoted in that manuscript.
The author must clearly indicate the sources of all quoted or submitted information, except for well-known information. Information obtained privately, in conversation, in correspondence or in discussions with third parties should not be used or communicated in the author's work without the express permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained.
Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes be the basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Published articles in relevant cases may contain similar criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.
Co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Fictitious names cannot be specified as an author or co-author. The author who submits the manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes all those and only those persons who meet the criterion of authorship. In an article written by several authors, the author who submits contact information, documents, and correspondence with the editors is responsible for the consent of the other authors of the article to its publication in the journal.
Ethical obligations of reviewers
Since the review of manuscripts is an essential stage in the publication process and, thus, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to perform a certain share of review work.
If the selected reviewer is not sure that his / her qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he / she must return the manuscript immediately.
The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the presented experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, as well as take into account the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
The reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest when the manuscript is closely related to the reviewer's current or published work. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, indicating a conflict of interest.
The reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript with the author or co-author of which he has personal or professional ties, and if such a relationship may affect judgments about the manuscript.
The reviewer should treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to others or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases where the reviewer needs someone's special advice.
Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any allegation that an observation, conclusion or argument has been previously published must be accompanied by.
