Biotechnologia Acta

...

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Ethics of scientific publication
Print PDF

Ethics of the scientific publication

The editors of the “Biotechnologia Acta” journal work in accordance with the international publication ethics principles, including but not limited to privacy policy, vigilance over the scholarly publications, consideration of possible conflict of interests, etc. The editorial board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and in particular of Publishing Ethics Resource Kit of publishing house Elsevier and of valuable practice of world-leading journals and publishers as well. Following the ethic rules of scientific publications by all the members of the process promotes guarantees for author’s intellectual property rights, improves quality of publication in the world scientific society’s sight and excludes possibility of illegal appropriation of author’s materials for the convenience of individuals.
This Condition corresponds to policy of the journal and it is one of the basic constituent of reviewing and journal’s publication.

1. Duties of the authors

Authors should understand that they carry personal liability for the provided text of manuscript; that suggests the following principles:
1.1. To provide reliable results of the research. Definitely wrong, knavish or faked statements equal to unethical behavior and can be considered as inappropriate.
1.2. To take part in the process of expert assessment of article’s manuscript. The head editor can request the initial data of scientific article for editorial review, and authors must provide free access for these data, if it is possible, in every case authors should save initial materials during reasonable period of time after the publication.
1.3. To provide guarantees that the results of research stated in the manuscript are independent and original. In case of other work areas usage or appropriations of statements by other authors, this work should have corresponding bibliographic references with mandatory definition of the author and primary source. According to the condition 3.4 “Conditions about reviewing of scientific articles in the polythematic journal “Discussion”: all the articles must be subjected to the checkup by means of the program “Antiplagiat”. Excessive appropriations and plagiarism in any form, including not performed quotations, rephrasing or rights’ appropriation of somebody’s research results are considered as unethical and inappropriate actions. All the articles which consist of materials’ compilation published before by other authors, without creative revision and personal author’s cognition are unacceptable for publication in the journal.
1.4. To understand that authors carry initial liability for novelty and reliability of the scientific research results.
1.5. To recognize contribution by all the people engaged in the process of research or set the character of the presented scientific work. In particular, this article must have bibliographic references to the publications which had a meaning during the research. All the information got by talks, correspondence or discussions with other people can be used without open written permission from the source. All the sources must be opened. If this work uses written or illustrative materials by many people, permission must be got and provided to the editorial board.
1.6. To present original manuscript to the journal which hasn’t been sent to other one and hasn’t been under consideration, and also article hasn’t been published in other journal. Non-compliance of this principle is considered as a rude violation of the publication ethics and gives substantiation for reviewing refusal. Text of article must be original, in other words it must be published in the present form in periodical printing for the first time. If the elements of the manuscript were published in other article, the author must make a reference for early work and define essential differences of new work with the previous one. Literal copying of personal works and its rephrasing are inappropriate; they can be used only for basis of new conclusions.
1.7. To guarantee the right membership list of co-authors. This list should have all the people who made an essential intellectual contribution in the concept, structure and carrying out or interpretation of the given work results. Other people who took part in some aspect of the work should be thanked. The author also should guarantee that all the co-authors looked through the final variant of the article, approved it and agreed with the publication. All the authors defined in the article should carry public liability for the article’s content. If the article is a multidisciplinary work, the author can be responsible for their own contribution, being responsible for the general result. People who do not take part in the research can’t be included in the list of co-authors.
1.8. In case of detection of critical mistakes or uncertainties in the work at the stage of its consideration or after publication, it is necessary to inform the editorial staff of the journal hereof immediately and to make a collective decision concerning an error confession and/or to correct it as soon as possible. If the editorial board knows about it from third party, the author ought to eliminate or correct the mistakes immediately or to prove correctness of the information.
1.9. To define all funding sources in the manuscripts; to declare about possible conflicts of interest, which could influence the results of the research, its interpretation and reviewers’ opinion.

2. Ethic principles in the reviewer’s activity

A reviewer carries out a scientific expertise of author’s materials, so his actions should be impartial, following the next principles:
2.1. Expert assessment should help the author to improve quality of the article text and the head editor to make a decision for publication.
2.2. A reviewer who doesn’t consider himself or herself to be a specialist in the certain sphere or knows that he or she can’t provide the review of the article in time must inform the head editor about it and retire from the reviewing.
2.3. A reviewer can’t be the author or co-author of the reviewing work, and also research advisor and/or employees of the department where the author works.
2.4. Every manuscript got from the editorial board for reviewing is a confidential document. It can’t be discussed with other people excluding people defined by the head editor.
2.5. A reviewer must be impartial. Personal remarks to the author are forbidden. A reviewer must express own opinion clearly and with reason.
2.6. If it is possible, a reviewer should find published articles corresponding to the reviewing article and not quoted by the author. Every statement in the review that observation, conclusion or argument form the article has been met in the literature before, it should be accompanied with certain bibliographic reference. Reviewer also should pay attention of the head editor about similarity or partial coincidence of the peer-reviewed article with every other one published before.
2.7. A reviewer can’t use information and ideas form the article obtained for reviewing for personal purposes with due attention to confidentiality of this information and ideas.
2.8. Reviewer should take into consideration the articles with conflict of interest, caused by competition, cooperation or any other relations with any author or organization connected with the article.

3. Principles of professional ethics in activity of editorial staff

During the activity editorial staff, editorial-and-publishing group, and members of the editorial group of the journal carry liability for publication of author’s works that leads to the next main principles:
3.1. During the decision making concerning publication the head editor is guided by reliability of the presented data and scientific importance of the considered paper.
3.2. The head editor shouldn’t have conflicts of interest towards the articles he refuses or apply.
3.3. The head editor carries liability for the decision which articles will be published or refused. Meanwhile he is guided by the policy of the journal and follows juridical restrictions, avoiding libel, author’s copyright violation and plagiarism. In order to make a decision the head editor may consult with the members of the editorial staff and reviewers.
3.4. The head editor evaluates a manuscript only by scientific content regardless race, sex, sexual orientation, religious confession, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status and political views of the author.
3.5. The head editor, employees of editorial board, editorial-and-publishing group and editorial group of the journal can’t expose information about an article to nobody, except the authors, assigned potential reviewers and other editorial board members, and sometimes a publisher.
3.6. Not published data, got from the manuscripts presented for consideration, can’t be used by the head editor, employees of editorial board, editor-and-publishing group or editorial group for personal profit or given for third party (without author’s written permission).
3.7. The head editor shouldn’t allow information to publication if there are enough evidences that this article is a plagiarism.
3.8. An article, in publication case, is posted in free access; the authors’ copyrights are saved.
3.9. The head editor together with the publisher shouldn’t ignore the claims concerning the considered articles or published materials. In any conflict situation they should take measures for violated rights’ restoration, and in case of mistakes discoveries they should assist in corrective publication or disclaimer.
3.10. The head editor, members of the editorial staff, and editorial-and-publishing group should support confidentiality of names and other information concerning the reviewers. If it is necessary, in decision making for new reviewer attraction, this reviewer can be informed about previous ones.  
4. Principles of professional ethics in publisher’s activity

The publisher carries liability for publishing author’s works. It causes the necessity to follow the next main principles and procedures:
4.1. To promote realization of ethic responsibilities by the editorial board, editorial-and-publishing group, editorial group, reviewers and authors according to the requirements.
4.2. To support the journal’s editorial board in consideration of claims to ethic aspects of publishing materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers, if it is a responsibility of the editors.
4.3. To support confidentiality of the author’s materials before publication.
4.4. To understand that the journal’s activity is not a commercial project and can’t be considered as profitable.
4.5. To be ready to publish corrections, explanations, disclaimers or excuses, when it is necessary.
4.6. To give the editorial board a possibility to exclude the publications with plagiarism and unreliable data.

Head editor of the “Biotechnologia Acta” journal Komisarenko S.V. confirmed the condition of scientific publications’ ethics on the 25th of June, 2015.

© Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2008

 

Additional menu

Site search

Site navigation

Home Ethics of scientific publication

Invitation to cooperation

Dear colleagues, we invite you to publish your articles in our journal.
© Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2008.
All rights are reserved. Complete or partial reprint of the journal is possible only with the written permission of the publisher.
E-mail
for information: biotech@biochem.kiev.ua.