Publication Ethics

Responsibilities of the Authors (based on the recommendations of Elsevier, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and International Standards for Authors)

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research should submit an accurate report on the performed work as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Basic data must be reliably presented in the article. The article should contain enough information and citations to allow others to duplicate work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable. Reviews and professional publications of articles should be accurate and objective, and the editorial “thought” should be the same.

Access to data storage

Authors may be requested input data due to the article for editorial review and they must be ready to provide public access to such data (in accordance with the ALPSP Statement on Data and Databases (ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) if possible, and in any case, be ready to store such data within a reasonable time after their publication.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and if they used the work and/or the words of other authors, it was properly quoted or taken in quotation marks.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from the presentation of someone else’s work as their own to copying or paraphrasing of the essential parts of someone else’s work (without indication of authorship) to appropriation of the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

Repeated, duplicate or simultaneous publications

The author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. Sending of one and the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable.

In general, the author should not submit for consideration previously published works in another journal. Sometimes, the publication of certain types of work (for example, clinical guidelines and translations) in more than one journal is justified, if certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of journals must agree to a secondary publication, which should reflect the same data or translation of the original document. The main reference should be in the secondary publication.

Confirmation of sources

The author always must validate works of other authors as required. The authors should publish researches that were critical in determining the nature of the published work. Information received in private capacity, for example, in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or provided without the written permission of the source. Information obtained through confidential services, such as manuscript reviews or grant applications, should not be used without the written permission of the author of the work.

Authorship to Research

Authorship should belong to someone who has made a significant contribution to the concept, intention, execution or interpretation of published research. All those, who have made a significant contribution, should be listed as co-authors. Those, who participated in certain essential aspects of a research project, should be recognized or presented as participants.

The author should ensure that all identified collaborators are listed in the work and that they are acquainted and approved the final version of the document and agreed with its submission for publication.

Risk factors and research involving humans or animals

If the research is connected with chemicals, procedures and equipment, which are characterized by any unusual risk factors, the author should clearly identify them in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of the subject of animals or humans, the author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures have been performed in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations and that they have been approved by the relevant institutional establishments. The authors should include a statement in the manuscript that the consent was obtained on the basis of complete information for the experimental study of human beings. Rights to a person’s privacy must always be respected.

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interest

A conflict of interests can exist when the author or institution of the author has financial or other relationships with other people or organizations that may have an inappropriate influence on the author’s work. The conflict can be real or potential, and full disclosure of information is the safest option. All provided information should disclose all communications that may be interpreted as representing a conflict of interests. The journal may use such information as a basis for editorial decisions and may publish such information, if they are considered important to readers in the assessment of the manuscript. The journal may decide not to publish on the basis of the declared conflict. At the end of the text, under the subtitle “Information Disclosure Statement”, all authors must provide information on any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including any financial, personal or other relationship with other people or organizations within 3 (three) years from the beginning of the submitted work that could negatively affect (distort) their work.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include work, counseling, and share ownership, fees, paid expert opinions, patent applications / registrations, grants or other funding sources. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

All sources of financial support for a project should be disclosed. This statement (with the heading “The role of the source of funding”) should be made in a separate section of the text and placed before Bibliography. The authors should describe the role of a sponsor (s) of the study, if any, in the research plan; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in report writing; and in taking a decision to submit a document for publication.

Fundamental mistakes in published works

When an author reveals a material error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author should immediately notify editor of the journal or publisher and co-operate with editor in order to correct the document. If editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a material error, the author must immediately correct the document or submit evidence of correctness of the original article to the editorial office.

Responsibilities of editors (based on the recommendations of Elsevier and Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Publication decision

The decision of the editors to accept or reject a document for publication based on the importance, originality and clarity of the article, and the validity of the study and its relevance to the subject matter of the journal.

Editors decide on which articles to publish, depending on the quality and relevance for the journal and without interference on the part of owner/publisher of the journal.

The decision on publication is taken in the light of copyright law. The editor’s decision is based on his/her best judgment and the views of other editors or reviewers.

Fair game

Articles are given an unbiased assessment, taking into account their scientific and practical content. All articles are assessed irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political beliefs of the author.


The editorial board does not disclose information that has become known in the process of study of the submitted articles and other materials, except for the author, reviewer (reviewers).

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interests

The editorial board should avoid conflict of interests, that is cases when the author (or institution of the author), reviewer or editor has such financial or personal relations that adequately impact on objectivity, impartiality of the work of the editorial council, scientific perception of the submitted article.

In the event of appearance of a conflict of interests of a member of the editorial board, he may to withdraw from study and evaluation of the manuscript for cause, requesting the transfer of such a manuscript to another member of the editorial board.

Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief have the right to request information on a conflict of interests from all participants of the process before or after the publication of the article and make appropriate refutations, modifications or disclosures.

Participation and collaboration in research

If the author submits a complaint about his publication in the journal, the editorial board applies appropriate adequate measures. Such measures have the nature of negotiations of the editorial board with the author. The facts of violation of ethical norms are considered by the editorial council irrespective of the publication date.

If the arguments, complaints were reasonable, the editorial board is obliged to make appropriate refutations, changes or disclosures.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers (based on the recommendations of Elsevier, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Contribution to editorial decision

An independent and impartial conclusion of the quality of the submitted article (publication) promotes the adoption of an objective decision by the editorial council to place such a publication in the journal. Scientists, who have volunteered to perform the role of a reviewer, must read and evaluate the article (publication) in good faith.


The editorial board will provide information about the deadlines for the request for review. Notify them during the day or two that you have received the request. They will appreciate the fact that you have timely made them aware of whether you are able to complete the review or not. Failure to review the document does not entail any consequences.

If the reviewer understands that the review will take longer than usual, please contact the editor to discuss this issue. The editor may ask you to recommend another reviewer, or may be willing to wait a bit longer (for example, if the document is highly specialized and reviewers are difficult to find). As a general recommendation, if you know that you will not be able to complete the review within the specified time frame, you must refuse to process the document.


Any manuscripts received for consideration should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others, except cases when it is agreed with the editor. Unpublished materials, disclosed in the submitted manuscript, should not be used in own research of a reviewer without the written consent of the author. Information, which is not subjected to disclosure or ideas obtained during an independent assessment must be confidential and not be used for personal gain.

Principles of objectivity

Reviews of submitted publications should be impartial, objective and based solely on a comprehensive assessment of the content and results of the research to be carried out. The critique of the author’s personality is unacceptable. The review should be qualified, understood and reasoned.

Source confirmation

Reviewers are obliged to identify relevant published works in the reviewed material that were not quoted by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have been used previously in any publication should be documented as quotes. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor-in-chief’s attention to substantial or partial resemblance to any other work with which the reviewer is directly acquainted.

Disclosure of information and conflicts of interests

Reviewers do not accept manuscripts, which can provoke conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative or other relationships or communications with any of the authors, companies or institutions that are related to the work. In this case, the reviewer should contact the editor and refuse to review the particular document.