Ethical obligations of the editorial board of the journal
The editorial board is responsible for the publication.
All materials provided 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 amend the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board.
The editorial board considers, without bias, all the manuscripts presented to the publication, evaluating each article properly, and ensures an honest review process.
The editorial board may reject a manuscript without a review if it considers that the work does not correspond to the journal's profile.
The editorial board of the journal opposes falsification, plagiarism, sending the author of one work in several journals, copying the contents of the article in various works repeatedly, misleading the public about the actual contributions of the authors to publication.
The editorial board has the right to remove even a published article, in case of finding out the violation of someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics.
The decision of the editorial board to accept or reject an article for publication should be based on the importance of the article, originality and clarity, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance to the competence of the journal.
After a positive decision of the editor-in-chief, the article is published in the journal and placed on the relevant electronic resources.
Ethical obligations of reviewers
The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind review). Reviewers do not know about the author, the author - about reviewers.
The editorial board reserves the right to additionally appoint an independent reviewer. Each scientist is required to perform some work on the review process.
Reviewers must adhere to ethical requirements in the scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.
The reviewer must always objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its theoretical part, the interpretation and presentation of the material, and also take into account the extent to which the content of the article corresponds to established scientific and linguistic-stylistic standards.
The reviewer should deal with a manuscript that is subject to review as a confidential document: do not show the manuscript to other persons, do not discuss it with other peers, except for special cases where the reviewer needs someone else's special advice.
The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor to any significant similarity between the manuscript and any other published article or manuscript known to him.
Reviewers should clearly explain and justify their article's considerations so that members of the editorial board and authors understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that certain observations, conclusions, arguments, etc. have already been published earlier should be accompanied by a reference to the relevant source.
The reviewer must provide a response to the manuscript in a timely manner.