Ethics of scientific publications
Ethics of scientific publications is a system of rules for professional behavior within relationship between authors, peer reviewers, editors, publishers and readers during the process of creation, dissemination and use of scientific publications.
In its activities the Editorial Board and other university personnel responsible for the process of preparation and edition of scientific journal «VESTNIK OF MSTU» follow the ethical standards approved by the «Committee on Publication Ethics» (COPE) as well as take into account good publication practice.
The Editorial Board of scientific edited journal “VESTNIK OF MSTU” accepts only original previously unpublished scientific articles. Articles, manuscripts and research topics should be within journal’s scope, mission or objectives and comply with the journal’s rules for formatting and submission (paper style; general structure of the paper; figures presentation etc.)
The Editorial Board checks all papers and articles for plagiarism.
Editorial Board evaluates articles and takes a decision about article’s approval or rejection based on the following primarily criteria:
- scientific value/merit, significant
- research novelty, originality
- clarity, proper rationale for research results
- research result reliability
- completeness and validity of the conclusions
Journal Editorial Board considers the manuscript as a confidential document. This means that the information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage or for benefit of other people and organizations. Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration may not be used in personal research without the prior written consent of the author.
Journal editors receive consent from authors to use and process their personal data.
The editors use an author’s personal information solely for contacting the author.
The editorial staff holds reviewers’ personal information in confidence.
- an author bears responsibility for the novelty and the reliability of the results of the research
- an author confirms that submitted papers have not been previously published and will not be sent for publication in an another scientific journal without notification of the editorial office of the journal
- an author shall guarantee that results of the study, which stated in the given manuscript, are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be arranged with the obligatory indication of the author and the primary source
- an author realizes that he holds responsibility for illegal use of objects of intellectual property, copyright material or know-how in his own scientific article in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian Federation
- an author attaches to the article a written consent (letter or publication agreement) signed by all authors. Editorial board considers such letter as a fact proving that an author holds the copyright on published material
- an author submits manuscript in accordance with journal formatting guidelines and requirements
- if the author finds out considerable errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its review or after its publication, he should as soon as possible inform the Editorial Board
- an author informs the editors about any potential conflicts of interest
- an author gives permission to make editorial changes (literary editing, proofreading)
- an author gives consent for personal data processing according to the article of Federal Law “Personal data” dtd 27.07.2006 N152
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of the research is judged. In addition to fairness in judgment and expertise in the field peer reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors and readers.
Ethical responsibilities of reviewers:
- Competence. Reviewers who realize that their expertise is limited have a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the editor. Reviewers need not to be expert in every aspect of an article’s content, but they should accept an assignment only if they have adequate expertise to provide an authoritative assessment
- Confidentiality. Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process
- Integrity. Reviewer comments and conclusion should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. Potential reviewers who are concern that they have a substantial personal or financial conflict of interest, should immediately inform or discuss their concerns with the editor
- Impartiality. All reviewers’ comments should be based solely on paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing
The following materials were used in preparation of this section:
Preparing and editing scientific journal. International practice on editing, peer reviewing, publishing and authorship ethics: collection of translations / compiled by Kirillova O.V. – М. : University of Finance, 2013. – page 140.
Council of Science Editors’ White Paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publication. Version updated in 2012. [available at:] / Editorial Policy Committee (2011–2012) ; translation from Eng. V.N. Gureeva, PhD in Philosophy; edited by N.A. Mazova, PhD in Engineering. – Ekaterinburg: published by Ural University, 2016 – page 132. – (Library of scientific editor and publisher).
Updating date: 14.09.17