Ethics of scientific publications
The editorial board of the scientific journal «Bulletin of Bokhtar State University named after Nosiri Khusrav» in its activities, based on the principles of publication ethics, acceptance by the world community and on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications, accepts attention to the valuable experience of authoritative domestic and international magazines and publications.
In order to prevent negative phenomena in publishing (plagiarism, presentation of inaccurate information) and to ensure high quality of scientific publications, public recognition of the author’s scientific results, each member of the editorial board, author, reviewer, publisher, as well as institutions participating in the publication process, must comply with the norms and rules of ethics and take the necessary measures to prevent the aforementioned negative phenomena. Compliance with the rules of ethics of scientific publications by all participants in this process creates favorable conditions for ensuring the rights of authors to intellectual property, improving the quality of the publication and excluding illegal use of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.
Basic concepts used in this process:
The ethics of scientific publications is a system of moral and professional norms and is applied in the relationship between authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and readers in the process of disseminating and using scientific publications.
An author is a person or group of persons (co-authors) who participate in the process of creating publications of the results of scientific research.
The editor-in-chief is the person who manages the editing work, makes decisions on the publication of the magazine.
Publisher — a legal entity or individual who publishes scientific articles.
A scientific article is a completed and published work of the author.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of authorship of someone else’s work of science or art, ideas or inventions of other people. Plagiarism is considered a violation of copyright and patent laws and, as such, carries criminal liability.
The editor is a representative of a scientific journal or a publishing house, in accordance with the requirements of the journal prepares material for publication and, if necessary, maintains communication with the authors.
The editorial board is an advisory body, which consists of authoritative, highly qualified specialists who help the editor-in-chief in choosing, preparing and evaluating works for publication.
Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publisher. He conducts a scientific examination of the author’s material in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
A manuscript is an author’s work that has not been previously published in other publications and is submitted for publication.
1. Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the publisher
The publisher in its activities is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, therefore, he must comply with the following basic principles and rules:
1.1. Facilitate the fulfillment of ethical duties by the editorial board, editorial and publishing group, editorial board, reviewers and authors.
1.2. Support the editorial staff of the journal in considering complaints about the ethical aspects of published materials, help in cooperation with other journals (publications).
1.3. Observe the confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any other information until the moment of its publication.
1.4. Realize that the activity of the journal is not a commercial project and does not carry the purpose of making a profit.
1.5. Always be ready to post corrections, clarifications, denials and apologies when necessary.
1.6. Provide the editorial board with the ability to exclude publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.
1.7. The publishing house (editor) has the right to reject the manuscript or demand that the author revise it if it is framed with violations of the Pavil adopted in this journal and agreed with the Publisher.
1.8. If the article is accepted for publication, it is placed in the public domain and the copyright is reserved by the authors.
1.9. If content, grammatical, stylistic and other errors are identified in the article, the editorial board undertakes to take all necessary measures to eliminate them.
1.10. To coordinate with the author the editorial proofs introduced into the article.
1.11. Contribute to the timely release of the journal.
2. Ethical principles that should guide the author of a scientific publication
The author (or a group of authors), when submitting materials to a scientific journal, must (must) realize that he bears the initial responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following principles:
2.1. Authors must provide reliable results of their research. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are not acceptable.
2.2. Authors must ensure that the research results reflected in the article are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unofficial quotations, rephasing or appropriation of rights to the results of other people’s research, is unethical and unacceptable. The presence of borrowing without a link will be considered by the editorial board as plagiarism.
2.3. Authors must provide true facts and information in the manuscript; provide sufficient information to verify and repeat experiments by other researchers; not use information obtained privately without written permission; prevent data forgery and falsification.
2.4. Prevent re-publication of the article (the author must indicate in the cover letter that his scientific work is being proposed for publication for the first time). If individual elements of the manuscript were published earlier, then the author must refer to the previous work and indicate the difference between the new work and the previous one.
2.5. Authors should not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another journal.
2.6. It is necessary to take into account the contribution of all those persons who were directly involved in the study and indicate their research work in the article.
2.7. Authors should be ethical when criticizing and commenting on others’ research.
2.8. As co-authors of the article, persons who have contributed to the research should be indicated. It is inappropriate to name persons who did not participate in the study as co-authors.
2.9. Authors should respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and make efforts to eliminate the indicated deficiencies or prove their correctness with reliable facts.
2.10. Authors are required to prepare and submit their articles in accordance with the rules adopted by the journal.
2.11. If the author, during the period of consideration of the article or after its publication, discovers serious flaws or inaccuracy, then he must immediately notify the editorial board of the journal.
2.12. The authors, in the event that third parties have identified serious flaws in their articles and they have been reported to the publication, then in order to prove the correctness of the original article, they must offer the editorial board reliable facts, and otherwise correct the existing shortcomings.
3. Ethical principles in the activity of the reviewer
The reviewer carries out scientific expertise of copyrighted materials, so his actions must be unbiased. This requires adherence to the following principles:
3.1. The manuscript received for reviewing should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review and discussion to other persons who do not have the authority from the editorial office.
3.2. The reviewer must be aware that the manuscript sent to him is the intellectual property of the author and refers to information that is not subject to disclosure. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer expresses his point of view about the existence of inaccurate information and falsification of materials in the article.
3.3. The reviewer can draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to the essential or partial similarity of the evaluated manuscript with any other work, as well as the facts of the absence of references to the provisions, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other authors.
3.4. The reviewer should mark the corresponding published works that are not cited (in the article).
3.5. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results, clearly substantiated recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
3.6. The comments and wishes of the reviewer should be objective, principled and aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.
3.7. The reviewer must make decisions based on specific facts and provide evidence of his decision.
3.8. The reviewer is not allowed to make copies of the manuscripts for their own needs.
3.9. The reviewer does not have the right to use in his own interests the knowledge about the content of the work before its publication.<
3.10. A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, must inform the editor about this with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.
3.11. Article feedback is confidential. The name of the reviewer should be known only by the executive secretary and the editor-in-chief and this information should be kept confidential.
4. Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editor-in-chief
The editor-in-chief in his activities is responsible for the publication of works of authorship, therefore, he must observe the following basic principles:
4.1. When deciding on publication, the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal should be guided by the reliability of the presentation of data and the scientific significance of the work in question.
4.2. The intellectual content of the proposed manuscript should be assessed by the editor-in-chief regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, social origin, citizenship, social position or political preferences of the author.
4.3. Information contained in unpublished articles should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to others without the written consent of the author. Information or idea obtained during editing and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
4.4. The editor-in-chief should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
4.5. The editor-in-chief assumes the following obligations in his work:
— to constantly improve the magazine;
— observe the principle of freedom of opinion;
— strive to meet the needs of readers and authors of the journal;
— to exclude the influence of the interests of business or politics on making decisions about the publication of materials;
— make a decision on the publication of materials in accordance with the following basic rules: compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the article; clarity of presentation; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. Research quality and relevance are the basis for a publication decision;
— take all necessary measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information;
— take into account the recommendations of the reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of the article. Responsibility for decisions on the publication of an article lies entirely with the editorial board of the journal;
— justify your decision in case of acceptance or rejection of the article;
— to provide the author of the material under review with an opportunity to substantiate his research position;
— when changing the editorial board, do not cancel the decision of the previous editorial board to publish the material.
4.6. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims related to editing the manuscript or published materials, and if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.
5. Principles to be followed when publishing articles:
5.1. Compliance with publishing ethics by the editorial board;
5.2. Compliance with guidelines for rejection of articles;
5.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing;
5.4. Preventing damage to intellectual and ethical standards in the presence of commercial interests;
5.5. Willingness to publish corrections, clarifications, deviations and apologies when necessary;
5.6. Preventing the publication of plagiarism and fake data.
6. Conflict of interest
In order to prevent cases of violation of publication ethics, it is necessary to eliminate the conflict of interests of all parties involved in the process of publishing the manuscript. A conflict of interest arises when there is a financial, scientific, or personal relationship between an author, reviewer, and editorial board, and this conflict negatively affects their actions. Such relationships are called dual obligations, competing interests, or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the ethical standards adopted by the journal, the following responsibilities are assigned to each of the parties.
The editor is obliged:
— in the event of a conflict of interest between the author of the article and the reviewer, appoint another reviewer for reviewing;
— request from all participants in the publication of the manuscript information about the possibility of competing interests;
— make a decision on the publication of the information specified in the author’s letter regarding the conflict of scientific and financial interests, if it does not require confidentiality and cannot affect the assessment of the published work by the reader or the scientific community;
— ensure the publication of amendments if information on the conflict of interest was received after the publication of the article.
The author is obliged:
— indicate your place of work and the source of research funding.
The reviewer is obliged:
— inform the editor-in-chief about the presence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and refuse to review the manuscript.
Violation of publishing ethics
In the event of a situation involving a violation of publication ethics by the editor, author or reviewer, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished material. The editorial board is obliged in this case to demand clarification, without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties
If material containing significant inaccuracies was published, it must be immediately corrected in a form accessible to the reader and the indexing system.