Skip to content

The journal's policy as to the ethic regulations

The journal's policy as to the ethic regulations, guiding the subjects of the reviewing process, is formulated as follows:

  1. Qualification. If the reviewer is uncertain as to the level of qualification and the compliance of the profile heshe should reject reviewing the paper.
  2. Objectivity. The goal of reviewing is objective assessment of the quality of the presented article and the determination of the degree of its compliance with the scientific, literary and ethic standards.
  3. The copyright. To ensure the safety of the contributors' copyright the reviewer is not allowed to use the obtained proofs and conclusions without the contributor's prior consent.
  4. Conflict-of-interests. In case of conflict of interest between the results of the research and the reviewer's ideas or in case of personal or professional relationship of both parties, which may influence the reviewer's decision, the latter should return the article due to the conflict of interests.
  5. Confidentiality. The high-priority requirement is confidentiality of the reviewed article, due to which the reviewer is not allowed either to disclose the data of the article or to discuss the conclusions prior to their publication (except for the cases when the reviewer requires specific consultation after getting the permission of the editorial board).
  6. Trustworthiness. The accusation of plagiarism requires from the reviewer the adequate and grounded trustworthiness of his conclusions. Any statement of plagiarism or prejudiced citation must be supplied with the corresponding reference.
  7. Cooperation. In case of the reviewer's doubts as to plagiarism, authorship or falsification of the data heshe must turn to the editorial board with the request for a collective analysis of the original article.
  8. The principle of the fair game. As the reviewer must highlight any cases of insufficient citation of other scientific works in the field of the reviewed article, the criticism of insufficient citation of the reviewer's works should be identified as biased.
  9. Disciplinary terms. Periodicity of the scientific journal requires from the reviewer timeliness of reviewing the article and respect towards the contributors.

The information about the paper (the content, the process of reviewing, the reviewer's criticism and the final decision) is revealed only to the editorial board members of the Collection, the Contributor and Reviewers.

The reviews are submitted only to the established editorial board members of the Collection and the Contributor.

The terms of reviewing are determined by the order and quantity of the papers sent to the editorship.

Positive reviews, which assure the possibility of admitting the articles for publication, are made public on the sittings of International Editorial Council and Editorship.

The term of reviewing the article is from one to two months.