Scientific Journal of KubSAU

Polythematic online scientific journal
of Kuban State Agrarian University
ISSN 1990-4665
AGRIS logo UlrichsWeb logo DOAJ logo

Journal Policy

Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University (Scientific journal of KubSAU) is owned and operated by Kuban State Agrarian University of the Russian Federation Ministry of Agriculture.

Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University is an e-print service in the fields of agricultural science, biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, finance and statistics, humanitarian sciences, mathematics and physics.

Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University is owned and operated by Kuban State Agrarian University, a state not-profit educational institution. Scientific Journal of Kuban State Agrarian University is funded by Kuban State Agrarian University and by supporting institutions.

Submissions to Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University must conform to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation academic standards and the international standard and requirements of citation database Scopus of peer-reviewed literature.

Submissions to Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University must conform to the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation criteria and requirements imposed for the peer-reviewed scientific journals; the requirements of the Russian Federation Law «On mass media» from 27.12.1991 № 2124–1; the requirements of the SEC «Informregistr»; charter of Kuban State Agrarian University and other local acts of Kuban State Agrarian University.

Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University is included in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications list of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Multidisciplinary electronic Scientific Journal of Kuban State Agrarian University registration number by SEC «Informregistr» is 0420900012 (from 21 June 2006).

Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University Certificate of Registration Electronic Media numbers

— FS77-32022

— ISSN 1990–4665

— ISBN 5-94672-113-5

The order of reviewing articles

  1. All scientific articles submitted to the journal are the subject to peer review. The journal provides a review of all submitted materials relevant to its subject, for their expert evaluation. All the reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have publications on peer-reviewed articles for the last 3 years. The reviews are stored in the publishing house and the editorial office for 5 years.
  2. Executive Secretary of the editorial Council determines the compliance of the article to the requirements for registration and sends the article for reviewing to two members of the editorial Board or two external reviewers who are specialists, PhDs (Doctors of Sciences), who has the closest scientific specialization to the topic.
  3. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are property of the authors and contain information not be disclosed. The review is confidential.
  4. The timing of the review is to be determined by the Executive Secretary in each case, with the creation of conditions for maximum operational publication of the article.
  5. The editorial Board sends the authors copies of the review or a reasoned refusal, and shall send copies of reviews to the Ministry of education and science of the Russian Federation for admission to the editors of the relevant request. The review with the name of the reviewer can be provided on request of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
  6. The review covers the following issues:
    • o the content of the article matches the name;
    • o the evaluation of the relevance of the content of the article;
    • o the assessment of the form of the material and its availability;
    • o what exactly the advantages and disadvantages of the article are; what corrections and additions need to be made by the author;
    • o the appropriateness of publishing the article.
  7. In the final part of the review, based on the analysis of the article, there should be given clear insights of the reviewer, either of the publication of the article as submitted, or of the need of improving or processing
  8. The editors and reviewers do not enter into meaningful discussion of the articles with the authors.
  9. A negative review is not grounds for rejection. The Editor or his Deputy, who shall have the right to publish the article as a discussion, always makes the final decision on publication. Nevertheless, readers are not to be reported about the status of the articles.
  10. The positive review is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article. The final decision about the appropriateness and timing of publication is made by the Chief editor, or his Deputy after reviewing; or, if necessary, by the editorial Board of the journal.
  11. The editorial Board does not keep articles not accepted for publication. All articles received by the editorial Board are not to be returned.
  12. The article can be published by the decision of the editorial Board.
  13. The editorial Board strictly adheres to the norms and the rules of international publication ethics.
  14. The opinion of the editors and reviewers may not coincide with the opinion of the author and is not a basis for rejection of articles.
  15. The editors receive way more articles than we can possibly publish as the number of incoming articles is not actually limited, but the number of published ones is fundamentally limited by the capabilities and plans of the publisher. Therefore, the number of peer-reviewed articles and the terms of reviewing particular articles have to be determined by the editors of the magazine, based on the plans and the necessity of forming new issues of the journal. The editorial Board does not undertake any obligation to review all the articles sent to the office, as well as there is no timing for their review.

The ethics of scientific publications

This section is developed in strict accordance with the recommendations posted on the website of COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org)

General provisions

The Scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University (Polythematic online scientific journal of Kuban State Agrarian University) was founded in 2003 by Kuban state agrarian University. The full texts of the articles published in the scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University are in totally free access and available without registration. The main language of the journal is Russian, optional languages are English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Greek. We publish new issues of the journal on a monthly basis, except July and August. The journal is multidisciplinary (polythematic), so we can publish articles of all scientific specialties. The purpose of the Scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University is highlighting the research activities of Kuban state agrarian University and other scientific institutions in all major areas of their research and development quickly and reliably, as well as presenting methodological and practical results of teaching and research training.

The aim of the Scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University is creation of favorable conditions for the external examination of the level of scientific research through the publication of scientific articles about new, previously unpublished significant research results and practical results of their application.

The tasks of the Scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University:

— widening the communicative space of interaction between Russian and foreign scientists;
— organizing discussions on actual problems of science and practice;
— informing professionals and public readers about the life of domestic and international scientific community;
— exchanging experience in teaching and research training.

As a publisher, Kuban state agrarian University is responsible for compliance with ethical norms and rules in the published works.

The publisher undertakes the obligation of monitoring the scientific materials in accordance with the ethical norms and rules accepted by the international scientific community, published in [1, 2] and other documents posted on the website of COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org)

Editors’ ethics

Introduction

Editors should encourage authors to adhere to the highest ethical standards of publications. In addition, editors may indirectly contribute to the responsible conduct of researches, carrying out their policy in the editing process. To achieve the maximum effect within the research community, ideally, all the editors have to adhere to universal standards and best practices available. While there are some important differences between various fields of research relevant to each research community, there are important general processes and principles of editorial policy, which the editors must follow.

Editors must consider themselves as part of a wider professional editorial community, to keep themselves informed of relevant events, and to provide their edition with a possibility of learning and being regularly informed about relevant issues.

Editorial principles

1. Accountability and responsibility for the content of the magazine

Editors must take responsibility for what they publish and have some policies and procedures to ensure the quality of the material they publish.

2. Editorial independence and integrity

An important part of the responsibility, aimed at ensuring fair and impartial decisions, is defending the principle of editorial independence and integrity.

2.1 Separation of the decision making from commercial considerations

Editors must make their decisions about publishing on their own and take full responsibility for their decisions. One must separate the commercial activity from the editorial processes and decision making. Editors should take an active part in the pricing policy of the publisher and to strive for the wide availability of the material they publish.

Advertisements have to pass the same strict quality control and peer review as any other material intended for publication in the journal. Decisions on such materials have to be done in the same way as for any other content of the journal. Sponsorship and the sponsor’s role must be clearly stated to the readers.

Ads must be thoroughly checked to ensure that they follow the recommendations of the journal, they have to be clearly distinguishable from other content, and should not in any way be associated with the research components of the content.

The scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University is independent from sponsors and does not place any advertisements or promotions.

2.2 Relationship of the editors, publisher or owner

Editors should ideally have a written contract that defines the terms and conditions of their employment by the journal publisher or owner. The principle of editorial independence has to be clearly stated in the present contract. The publishers and the owners of the journal may not play any role in the decision making of the content due to commercial or political reasons. The publishers can not dismiss the editor because of any of the content of the journal if there wasn’t a serious misconduct or if the independent editorial investigation has not concluded that the decision of the editor to publish the material was made against the scientific mission of the journal.

2.3 Ranking of the magazine and decision making

Editors may not attempt to influence improperly the rating of their journal, artificially increasing links to the journal. For example, it is impractical to require that the references to the articles were included into the journal without genuine scientific reasons. In general, editors have to ensure that documents were considered on purely scientific basis, and that the authors do not feel pressure to get a specific publication without the guiding scientific reasons.

3. Editors’ confidentiality

3.1 Author’s materials

If the journal has a system where reviewers were selected by the editors (instead of placing the articles prior to publication for commenting), the editors will have to protect the confidentiality of the material of the authors and remind the reviewers to do the same. In general, editors may not share the documents submitted with the editors of other journals, without the permission of the authors or in cases of alleged wrongful conduct (see below). Editors usually are not required to provide materials to attorneys for litigation. Editors may not give any indication of the journal’s status to anyone except the authors. The system for submission of articles via the Web application must be running in a way preventing unauthorized access.

In case of illegal actions and the initiation of the investigation, it may be necessary for the disclosure of material to third parties (for example, for the Institutional investigation Committee or other editors). Additionally, the Scientific journal of Kuban state agrarian University provides its database for controlling and regulatory agencies, as well as by the requests of the Higher attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (HAC RF).

3.2 Reviewers

Editors must not disclose the identity of the reviewers, except when an open peer review system works, however, if reviewers want to disclose their names, it should be allowed.

If a misdemeanor of the suspected reviewers is confirmed, it may be necessary to disclose the name of the third party reviewer.

4. To encourage maximum transparency and full and fair reporting

To expand the knowledge in scientific fields, it is important to understand why this work was done, how it was planned and carried out and by whom, and what the author adds to the current knowledge. To achieve this understanding, the maximum transparency and full and fair reporting are crucial.

4.1 Authorship and responsibility

Journals must have a clear policy on authorship that meets the standards within the relevant field. They have to give instructions in the special section of the information for authors about what is expected from the author and, if there are different conventions of authorship, they should include what they adhere to.

For multidisciplinary and collaborative research, it has to be obvious to readers who did what and who assumes responsibility for the conduct and validity of each aspect of the study. Each piece of work must have at least one author who takes responsibility for their actions. For example, individual contributions and responsibilities can be listed in a special section. It is assumed that all the authors have significantly contributed to the work and must be familiar with all its contents, and ideally, this should be declared in the author’s statement, presented in the journal [1].

When there is indisputable change in authorship into force of the relevant reasons, the editors should require that all the authors (including those whose names were removed from the list of authors) agree (in written form). Disputes about authorship (i.e., disagreements about who should or should not be the author, before or after publication) cannot be solved by the editors prior to adjudication, but must be addressed at the institutional level or by other relevant independent institutions for both published and unpublished documents. Editors must then act on the basis of court decisions, for example, correcting the authorship in published works.

Journals must have a publicly stated policy on how the processed documents were submitted to the editors or members of editorial Board (see paragraph 8.2 of the editorial conflicts of interest).

4.2 Conflicts of interest and the role of funding source

Editors must have principles, which require that all authors declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, at least those that can affect the perception of the reader of the article, and placed the Declaration in the publication. Sources of research funding should be declared and published, and the role of the funding sources in the conception, conduct, analysis and reporting of the study should be specified and published.

Editors should clearly indicate that certain conflicts of interest preclude authorship in their information for authors or in some sections of the journal.

4.3 Full and fair reporting and compliance reporting

Among the most important duties of the editors is to maintain high standards in the scientific literature. Although standards may vary between journals, the editors should work to ensure that all the published works make a significant new contribution in their field. The editors should prevent so-called «salami publication» (i.e., publication of a minimum unit of study you can publish), to avoid duplication or redundant publication, except when the publication is acceptable for all (for example, publication in another language with cross-references) and to encourage authors to post their work in the context of previous work (i.e., article must be specified, and why this was necessary and why it was made, and what this work adds to the scientific knowledge or why it was required to repeat the previous work, and for what reasons the readers should accept it).

Journals have to adopt policies that encourage full and fair statements, for example, requiring authors to represent protocols or research plans in any areas which have standards, and, if they exist, to provide an evidence of compliance with the relevant guidelines on reporting. Compliance with reporting guidelines developed to improve reporting also makes it easier for editors, reviewers and readers to rate the actual study.

Digital files of images, figures and tables should adhere to appropriate standards in their field. Images should not be unreasonably changed in comparison with the original or cause confusion.

The editors would also consider the detection of plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publications using anti-plagiarism software, or for working with images. If plagiarism or fraudulent manipulation of the images is detected, this should lead to corresponding consequences for authors (see paragraph 5.2 on how to fix the violation).

5. Responding to criticism and comments

Reaction and response to the published studies by other researchers is an important part of the scientific discussion in most areas, which, as a rule, should be encouraged. In some areas, the logs can facilitate this discussion by posting readers’ answers. Criticism can be a part of General scientific discussion, and you can also highlight the intersection of the research or the integrity of the publication.

5.1 Ensuring the integrity of the published record — fixing

If the present errors in the published works are listed by the readers, the authors, the editors, or if these errors do not indicate that the operation is invalid, the correction (or a typo) should be published as soon as possible. The online version of a newspaper can be fixed starting from the date of repair, and by publishing the links to a typo. If the error indicates that the work or a substantial part of it is invalid, the article should be rejected with an explanation of the reasons for allotment (i.e., an honest mistake).

5.2 Ensuring the integrity of the published record — suspected research or publication misconduct

If serious concerns were conducted by the readers, the reviewers, or others towards to the behavior, the actions, or the statements of the academic work, the editors should first contact the authors (ideally, contact all the authors and to give them the opportunity to respond to the concerns. If the answer is unsatisfactory, the editors should accept it at the institutional level (see below). In some rare cases, mainly in the biomedical field, when problems are very serious and the published work may affect a clinical practice and population health, the editors should inform their readers about these issues, for example by publishing an «expression of concern», while the investigation continues. After the investigation is completed, appropriate actions should be taken by the editors with an accompanying commentary that explains the results of the investigation. The editors should also respond to the findings reported from national research organizations, which indicate a misdemeanor relating to the work published in the journal. The editors can make their decisions of removing the article if they believe that a serious violation has occurred, even if the institution which provided the investigation or the national authority does not recommend this.

The editors should respond to all the requests or suspicions towards to the research or the illegal publications submitted by the readers, the reviewers, or other editors. The editors often are the first recipients of information about these issues, and must act, even in the case of the article, which was not accepted or already rejected (rejected). In addition to being responsible for the publication in their journal, the editors have a collective responsibility for the research and should act when they become aware of potential violations, if it is possible at all. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate / redundant publication can be estimated with the help of the editors themselves. However, in most other cases, editors should require an institute investigation or to inform the relevant authorities (after receiving the explanations from the authors, if this explanation was unsatisfactory).

Rejected documents should be saved on the website, and they should be clearly marked as a failure in all online versions, including PDF, for the benefit of future readers.

More complete information on specific charges and the proposed action, such as rejecting you can find online at the website of COPE, including the scheme and the principles of rejections (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts; http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf).

5.3 Encouraging a scientific discussion

All the journals ought to consider the best mechanism through which the readers can discuss the documents, criticize them and add something to the discussion (in many areas, this can be done using printed or online materials in a feedback section). Authors can participate in debates on the published articles and can reply to comments and criticism, as appropriate. This type of a scientific discussion on the published work must occur in a timely manner. The editors should clearly distinguish criticism of the limitations of the study and critical comments, which indicate some possible irregularities in the research. Any critical comments that indicate the possibility of illegal actions should not be just published, but it requires further study, even if they are obtained through a long time after publication.

Editorial policy related to the journals that publish researches on humans and animals.

6. Critically assess and improve the standard of the ethics of the research

Mostly in Biomedical researches, but also in the Humanities and social Sciences, the ethical behavior of the research has a paramount importance in the protection of humans and animals. Ethical control, appropriate agreement procedures, and compliance with applicable laws — all that is required to be submitted by the authors. The editors should be alert to problems in this area.

6.1 Ethical confirmation and ethical behavior

As a rule, the editors should require an approval of the research signed by the Committee for ethics (or ethical committees) and be sure that the study was approved and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research involving humans, but, in addition, they must be prepared to face the problems in the ethical aspects of researches. It may occur that the document is sent to the reviewers with special expertise in this area, or the Committee for ethics of the journal, if available, or that editors require further representations or evidence from the authors or their institutions.

Articles may be rejected for ethical reasons, even if the research was approved by the Committee for ethics.

6.2 Agreement (participating in the study)

If the research was conducted on humans, the editors must ensure that the application for the approval procedure was included in the content of the article. In most cases, written agreement is the norm. If you have any concerns about procedures for obtaining consent when the research is conducted in vulnerable groups, or, if there is a doubt about ethical behavior, the editors should ask for the agreement form or ask the authors about how the agreement was submitted.

6.3 Consent (for publication)

For all clinical cases, small groups and photos of people, the editors should require the authors to receive an obvious consent to publication (which is different from the consent for participation in the study). This consent must inform the participants of the work, which will be published in the journal, and make it clear that, although all efforts will be made to remove unnecessary IDs, a complete anonymity is not possible, and ideally, the described person has already seen this article and agreed with the publication.

A signed agreement form should be kept in the patient’s file, and not to be sent to the journal (for maximum protection and data privacy, see paragraph 6.4). There may be some exceptions when it is not possible to obtain consent, for example, when the person has died. In such cases, after careful consideration of the possible harm, you need to be polite to attempt to obtain the consent from relatives. In very rare cases, an important public health message can justify publication without consent, if this is not possible, despite all the efforts to obtain consent and the advantage of publication outweighs the potential harm.

6.4 Data protection and confidentiality

The editors should critically assess any potential violations of data protection and confidentiality of patient information. This includes the requirement to issue a consent in a correct way to the presented research, consent to the publication, where applicable (see paragraph 6.3), and the availability of editorial policy guiding principles of medical confidentiality.

6.5 Compliance with relevant laws and best practice principles for ethical behavior

The editors should require authors to adhere to relevant national and international laws and principles, best practices, where applicable, for example, when conducting a research on animals. The editors should encourage the registration of clinical trials.

Editorial Processes

7. Ensuring fair and appropriate peer review process

One of the most important responsibilities of editors is fair and wise and expert evaluation. The editors have to explain the processes of peer review in the information for authors, and also to specify which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed.

7.1 Decision to review

The editors may reject the document without peer review, when it is inappropriate for the readers of the journal or because of poor quality. This decision must be made objectively and impartially. The criteria used to make this decision should be clear. The decision not to send the document for review must be based only on the academic content of the article, and should not be influenced by the nature of the authors or organization.

7.2 Interaction with reviewers

The editors must use the appropriate reviewers for the article, which is selected for publication, selecting people with sufficient experience only and avoiding conflicts of interest. The editors have to ensure that feedback will be received in a timely manner.

The reviewers should be informed about what is expected of them, and they have to be informed of any changes in editorial policy. In particular, the reviewers should be asked to assess the problems of research and publication ethics (i.e., do they think that the study was conducted without any ethics violations or did they report that they had any suspicions of plagiarism, forgery, falsification, or redundant publication). The editors should have a policy to require a formal Declaration of conflict of interest with the reviewers and should ask reviewers to inform them of any such conflict of interest at the first opportunity, so that they could decide impartially about the review, if it is possible. Some conflicts of interest may disqualify the Reviewer. The editors must emphasize the confidentiality of the material to the reviewers and should require the reviewers to tell them when they ask a colleague for assistance in the review or if they instruct a younger colleague in the assessment. The editors should ideally have a mechanism to control the quality and timeliness of peer review and to provide feedback to the authors.

7.3 Violation of reviewers

The editors have to take any reviewers’ misdeeds seriously and keep a record of any allegations of breach of confidentiality, no Declaration of conflict of interest (financial or non financial), misuse of confidential materials, or delays in the review to achieve competitive advantage. Serious illegal approval of the reviewer, such as plagiarism, should be considered at the institutional level (for further guidance see: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/07_Reviewer_misconduct.pdf).

7.4 Interaction with authors

Editors should make it clear to the authors, what is the role of the Reviewer, as this may vary from journal to journal. Some editors consider reviewers as consultants and do not necessarily follow (even if they ask) the recommendation of the reviewers of acceptance or rejection. Correspondence with editors, as a rule, is a duty of the corresponding author, who must ensure the involvement of co-authors at all stages. Communication with all the authors in the first view and in the final stage of acceptance can be useful; to be sure that all the authors were aware of the idea and approved the publication. As a rule, the editors should provide the authors with comments of all the reviewers in full. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude a part of the review, if it contains slanderous or insulting comments, for example. It is important, however, that such editorial corrections of inconvenient comments would not be used inappropriately.

We should always have good reasons that have to be presented clearly to the authors, if more reviewers were searched for at a later stage in the review process.

The final decisions of the editorial office and the reasons for this should be clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. If the article was rejected, the editors should ideally have an appellate procedure. The editors, however, are not obliged to reverse their decisions.

8. Decisions made by the editors

The editors are in the best position to make decisions about publications, so it is very important that this process would be just as fair and impartial as possible, and come along with the academic vision of a specific journal.

8.1 Editorial and journal processes

All editorial processes must be clearly stated for authors in the information section. In particular, it must be noted that it is expected from the authors, what kind of work will be published, and how the documents are processed in the journal.

All the editors have to be fully familiar with the policies of the journal’s vision and restrictions. The chief editor has an ultimate responsibility for all the decisions made.

8.2 Editorial conflicts of interest

The editors are not allowed to participate in the decisions about the work in which they have conflicts of interests, for example if they work or worked in the same institution and collaborated with authors, if they own any shares in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with their authors. The journal must have a defined process for handling such documents. The journal should also perform a processing of the articles submitted to the editors or members of the editorial board, and therefore, to provide an objective and independent processing of documents. This process has to be specified in the information for authors. Editorial conflicts of interest must be declared, ideally, publicly [1].

Responsible publication of studies: international standards for the authors

Introduction

The publication is the final stage of the research and, therefore, the responsibility for this goes to all the researchers. Scientific publications, as expected, are to present a detailed and continuous record of the research. Since the publication form the basis for new research and application results, they can affect not only the scientists but also, indirectly, on society as a whole. The researchers, therefore, are responsible for their publication to be honest, clear, accurate, complete, and balanced, and should avoid misleading, selective or ambiguous statements. The journal editors have the responsibility to ensure the integrity of the research literature, as it outlined in the General guidelines.

This document is aimed at creating the international standards for the authors of scientific research publications and describes the responsible practice of reporting on research. We hope that these standards will be approved by research institutes, funding institutions and professional societies; it will be useful both for editors and publishers; and will assist in the preparation of research integrity.

Responsible publication of researches

1 Strength and reliability

1.1 The research that is reported must be conducted in accordance with ethical standards and responsible manner in compliance with all relevant laws. [See also the Singapore Statute on research integrity, www.singaporestatement.org]

1.2 The research that is reported must be securely and carefully executed.

1.3 Researchers must use appropriate methods of analysis and display of data (and, if necessary, to seek and follow the advice of experts about this).

1.4 Authors must take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should carefully check their publication at all stages, to accurately report the methods and the results. Authors should carefully check the calculation, presentation, typescripts, presentation and evidence.

2 Honesty

2.1 Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or improper data manipulation. Research image (for example, micrograph, x-rays, photographs gel electrophoresis) must not be changed in such a way as to mislead.

2.2 Researchers should strive to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers must follow the relevant guidelines on reporting. The publication must provide sufficiently detailed descriptions of the experiments that will be repeated by other researchers.

2.3 Research reports must be complete. They must not omit inconvenient, contradictory or inexplicable results, or the results that do not support the hypothesis or interpretation of the authors or sponsors.

2.4 Organizations funding researches and sponsors must not veto the publication of findings that do not favor their product or position. Researchers should not sign the agreements that allow sponsors to veto their research or supervise the publication of the findings (if there are exceptional circumstances, such as studies were classified by the government because of the impact of security).

2.5 Authors must warn the editor promptly, if they discover an error in the submitted, accepted or published works. Authors should collaborate with the editorial Board, requiring correction or retraction.

2.6 Authors should submit others work promptly for citations and references.

2.7 Authors should not copy links from other publications, if they have not read the cited work.

3 Balance

3.1 New data should be presented in the context of the previous research. The works of other authors should be fairly represented. Scientific review and synthesis of the existing research should be complete, balanced, and should include findings, regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or the intended interpretation. Advanced ideas or opinions that represent a common point of view or arguments should be clearly separated from scientific surveys.

3.2 Shortcomings of this study have to be considered in the publications.

4 Originality

4.1 Authors must adhere to the requirement that the submitted work is an original research and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work must not be submitted simultaneously in more than one publication if the journal hasn’t agreed with co-publication. If articles were written in collaboration, this fact should be clearly indicated to the readers.

4.2. Adhering to applicable laws and copyright conventions. Copyright applies to all published materials, for example, tables, figures or extensive quotations, which can be reproduced only with appropriate authorization and confirmation.

4.3 Relevant previous works and publications of other researchers and authors must be duly recognized and noted in the references. Primary literature should be cited wherever possible.

4.4 Data, text, figures or ideas provided by other researchers have to be duly recognized and should not be presented as if they were independently obtained by the author. The original wording taken directly from the publications of other researchers has to be given in quotation marks with the appropriate references.

4.5 Authors must inform the editors if the data were published previously, or if multiple reports or multiple analysis of the same dataset are consideration for publication in another journal. Authors must provide copies of relevant publications or works sent to other journals.

4.6 Multiple publications arising from one research project must be clearly identified as such and primary publication must be indicated in the references. The translation and adaptation of the message for different audiences, should be clearly marked as such, must acknowledge the original, and must comply with the relevant conventions on copyright and permission demands. If in doubt, authors should obtain permission from the first publisher before you publish any work.

5 Transparency

5.1 All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment and materials, and other types of support (e.g., specialists, statistical analysis or writers must be disclosed.

5.2 Authors must disclose the role of research funds or sponsors (if any) in the creation of the study, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.

5.3 Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that could be construed as affecting the interpretation of their results or that editors, reviewers and readers would like to know. This includes any connection with the journal, for example, if the editors publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, the authors should follow the journal rules and institutional requirements for disclosure of competing interests.

6 Appropriate authorship and recognition

6.1 Scientific literature is used to record not only what has been discovered, but about the one who made the discovery. Authorship of scientific publications, therefore should accurately reflect the contribution of individuals in work and reporting.

6.2 In cases where the main contribution is owned to those who were listed as authors while those who made less significant or purely technical contributions in research or in publishing, were listed in confirmation section, the criteria for authorship and recognition should be agreed at the beginning of the project. Ideally, the criteria for authorship within a certain area should be coordinated, published and consistently applied in research institutions, professional and scientific societies, as well as sponsors. While the editors of the journal should publish and promote the adopted criteria for authorship relevant to their area, it cannot be expected that they can make decisions in copyright disputes. Responsibility for the correct authorship has to be taken by the authors working under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should encourage and support fair and accepted standards of authorship and recognition. If necessary, agencies should make decisions in copyright disputes and should provide assurance that it follows from the processes.

6.3 Researchers must ensure that only those persons who meet the criteria for authorship (who has made a significant contribution to the work) awarded authorship and that worthy authors are not missed. Agencies and journal editors should encourage practices that will prevent receiving guest authorship, gift authorship or ghost authorship.

Note:

  • Guest authors are those who do not meet the criteria for authorship;
  • Gift authors are those who meet the criteria for authorship but are listed because of their seniority, reputation or perceived impact;
  • Ghost authors are those who meet the criteria for authorship but included not because they meet the criteria for authorship, but as a personal favor or in exchange for payment.

6.4 All authors should be listed and have to be agree and approve submitted and accepted version of the publication. Any changes in the list of sponsors must be approved by all the authors, including any that have been deleted from the list. The corresponding author should act as a liaison between the editor and other authors must inform the co-authors and involve them in key decisions about the publication (for example, responding to the comments of the reviewers).

6.5 Authors should not use confirmation of mistakenly implied contribution or approval from individuals that, in fact, were not involved in the work or did not give their approval.

7 Accountability and responsibility

7.1 All authors should familiarize themselves with this manual and must ensure that the publication has followed the principles outlined in this manual. In most cases, the authors will be required to accept joint and several responsibilities for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if the authors assume they are only responsible for certain aspects of the study and its reporting, this should be stated in the publication.

7.2 Authors have to communicate with the editor or publisher to correct their work promptly, if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.

7.3 Authors have to follow the conventions, the requirements and the rules to make the materials, reagents, software, or data sets available for other researchers who ask them. Researchers, institutions and founders should have a clear policy for handling such requests. Authors must follow the relevant standards of the journal. While proper gratitude and appreciation is appropriate, researchers should not claim authorship as a condition for the exchange of materials.

7.4 Authors have to respond appropriately to the observations and the published correspondence. They should try to answer the questions of the correspondents and to provide clarification or additional details where necessary.

8 Compliance of the rules of reviewing and publication

8.1 Authors must follow the requirements of the publishers that the work hasn’t been submitted simultaneously for consideration in more than one publication.

8.2 Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from the review, or do not want to respond to the comments of the reviewer after receiving the acceptance message.

8.3 Authors must respond to reviewers' comments in a professional and timely manner.

8.4 Authors should respect the desire of the publishers to embargo to the media and should not, normally, allow their findings to be reported in the press, if they were accepted for publication (but not yet published) in scientific publications. The authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with the publishers in media coordination (such as press releases and press conferences) for all publications. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that go further than research.

9 Responsible reporting of a research involving humans or animals

9.1 Appropriate approval, licensing or registration must be received before the start of the study and its details must be presented in the report (for example, the Advisory Council, the approval of the ethics Committee research, national licensing authorities for the use of animals).

9.2 At the request of the editors, the authors must provide the evidence that the research has received permission and has been done with regard to ethics (such as copies of permits, license, and consent form participant).

9.3 Researchers should not, as a rule, post or transmit identifiable individual data collected during the study, without the special consent of the person (or his representative). Researchers should remember that many scientific journals are now freely available on the Internet, and therefore should be aware of the risk of causing danger or unexpected disorders of readers (for example, research participants or their families who recognize themselves in the description of the study, the images or family trees).

9.4 Relevant statistical tests should be defined in the beginning of the study, and the analyze data for the predefined results should be prepared and consistent. Secondary or post hoc analysis should be distinguished from the primary analysis and those set forth in the plan of data analysis.

9.5 Researchers should publish all relevant research results that could contribute to understanding. In particular, there is an ethical responsibility for the publication of the results of all clinical trials. Publication of failed trials or experiments that reject the hypothesis may help prevent others from wasting time and resources on such projects. If the conclusions from a small research and those that are not able to achieve statistically significant results can be combined to produce more useful information (e.g. meta-analysis), then such data should be published.

9.6 Authors should submit research protocols to the editors on demand (e.g., clinical trials), so that reviewers and editors can compare the report of the study with the protocol and verify that they were conducted in accordance with the plan and that no relevant details were overlooked. Researchers must follow the specific requirements for the registration of clinical trials and must include the registration number in all publications, to avoid litigation.

Links

1. Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 317–28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

2. Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309–16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

[1] It is necessary to be indicated in the application for publication

.