• Home
  • Editorial ethics

Editorial ethics



  1. Editors of the journal personally and independently are responsible for making a decision about publication of scientific paper.
  2. Decision of publication of an article should always be based on authenticity of the article reviewed and its scientific value.
  3. Editors are responsible for abidance of all modern recommendations of scientific paper submitted for publishing.
  4. The editor and the editorial board may not without a necessity disclose the information about manuscripts received to all persons, with the exception of  authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific consultants.
  5. Editor is obliged to review without prejudice all the manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each of them properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality and also state and place of work of the author (authors).
  6. All the responsibility for decision making about the rejection of a manuscript rests on the editor. Responsible and factored approach to these obligations mean that editor notes the recommendation of the reviewer – doctor of science of corresponding scientific field towards authenticity of the manuscript submitted for publication. However manuscripts could be rejected without reviewing if editor considers that they do not correspond to the content of this bulletin.
  7. Data on file, received from the submitted manuscripts, shall not be used in personal researches without written consent of the author. Information or ideas, received while reviewing and connected with possible advantages, should be hold in confidence and should not be used for the purpose of obtaining personal benefit.
  8. After positive answer of the editor an article is published in the bulletin and post on the corresponding website.
  9. Editor is obliged to respect intellectual independence of the authors.
  10. Responsibilities and rights of the journal editor concerning any submitted manuscript, author of which is the editor, are to be delegated to the other qualified person.
  11. If the editor submitted strong evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the bulletin are wrong, the editor is obliged to assist in publication of corresponding notification that indicates the mistake and if it is possible corrects it. This notification could be written by the person who found out that mistake, or by the independent author.
  12. Editorial staff of the journal is uncharged with responsibility owed to authors and/or third parties and organizations for possible losses caused by publication of the article. Editorial staff has the right to expunge already published article if it turns out that in the process of publication of the article somebody else’s rights or generally accepted standards of academic ethics are infringed. Concerning the fact of the article expunge editorial staff informs the author who submits the article to a person who recommends and organization where the work was performed.


  1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report of the research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
  2. Authors of scientific articles on original research should provide reliable results of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Data which is basic for the problem studied should be represented accurately. The article should contain enough details and bibliographic citations for possible reproduction. False or intentionally false statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are therefore unacceptable.
  3. The authors may be requested raw data relevant to the manuscript for editors’ review. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to such information, if it can be made, and in any case, be prepared to store the data for an adequate period of time after the publication.
  4. Authors should ensure that the work provided is original and in the case of usage of the work or statements of other authors should provide appropriate citations or excerpts. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, starting with presentation of other people's work as an author’s to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of other people's work (without attribution) and statement of their rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
  5. The author should cite those publications that have made a decisive impact on the essence of the work that was posted, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader to the earlier papers, important for this study understanding. Except reviews, citing of works that are not directly related to this information should be minimized. The author is obliged to hold a literary search to find and cite the original publications that describe research, closely linked to this research. It is also necessary to specify the source of crucially important materials used in this work, if these materials have not been received by the author himself.
  6. The author should not publish the manuscript in which most of it is devoted to the same research, more than in one journal as the original publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
  7. Author should not submit for consideration to the bulletin previously published articles.
  8. While preparing the manuscript for publication the author should inform the editor about related manuscripts of the author, presented or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be presented to the editor, and should be denoted their relations to the manuscript presented for publication.
  9. Authors could only be those persons who have made significant contribution to the formation of work conception, development, implementation or interpretation of the present research. All those, who have made significant contribution, should be named as co-authors.
  10. Authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication itself.
  11. The author is obliged to finalize the article according to the comments of reviewers and editorial board.
  12. The author may ask the editor not to use some reviewers when considering the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more such reviewers, if he feels that they are very important for an impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example, when there is a serious contradiction between this manuscript and the previous work of a potential reviewer.
  13. Experimental and theoretical study may sometimes serve as a basis for criticism of the work of another researcher. Published articles, as appropriate, may contain such criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.
  14. Authors should inform the editor about any potential conflict of interest, such as consulting or financial interests of any company, which could affect the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors should ensure absence of contractual relationship or ownership considerations that could affect the publication of information contained in the submitted manuscript.


  1. Review helps the editor to take decision about publication, and may also help the author to improve the quality of paper. Review - a necessary link in the formal scientific communications - is in the very "heart" of the scientific approach. All scientists who want to make a contribution to the publication must comply with the essential work of reviewing manuscripts of scientific articles. 
  2. If the selected reviewer is not confident that his qualification corresponds to the research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.
  3. Reviewers should not take part in the review of manuscripts in the case of conflict of interest due to competition, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the work of the presented paper.
  4. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and also consider the extent to which work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  5. The reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when a certain manuscript is closely linked with current or published work of the reviewer. In case of doubts, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, pointing to a conflict of interests.
  6. The reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript, with the author or co-author of which he has personal or professional relationships and if these relationships can affect on judgments about the manuscript.
  7. Each manuscript received for review should be considered as a confidential document. This work cannot be open and discussed with any persons who are not endowed with certain powers. Exceptions are cases when the reviewer needs someone’s special consultation.
  8. Reviewers must adequately explain and give reasons for their opinions so that the editor and authors can understand what their observations are based on. Any assertion that observation, conclusion or argument has been previously published, should be accompanied by appropriate reference.
  9. The reviewer should point out any cases of insufficient citation by authors of works of other scientists that are directly related to the work under review; therewith comments on the lack of citations of own research the reviewer may appear as biased. The reviewer should direct editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between this manuscript and any paper or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.
  10. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable; reviewers should reasonably and clear express their opinion.
  11. Reviewers should reveal significant published works, relevant to the topic and not included to the bibliography of the manuscript.
  12. Reviewer should provide his feedback in time.
  13. Unpublished data from submitted for consideration manuscripts cannot be used for personal research without the written consent of the author. Information and ideas generated during the review, and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not be used to obtain personal benefit.