The editorial board is consistently adheres to the publishing standards of publication COPE Code of Conduct confirmed by the COP (Commіttee on Publіcatіon Ethіcs).
Editors’ Responsibility. Editors in charge follow the procedures that ensure the quality of the published materials, protect the freedom of copyright, implement the principles of academic integrity, do not allow commercial interests to be compromised by intellectual or ethical standards, always ready to make corrections, explanations and to apologize if necessary.
The editorial board of the scientific publication reserves the right to reject articles that do not meet the requirements and subject matter of the journal.
The editorial board reserves the right to edit the manuscript stylistically and to reduce it preserving the author’s style. Corrections that, according to the editorial board, can change the content of the text, are agreed with the author.
Relations between Editors and Authors. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject to publish an article are based on the article, its originality, clarity and consistency, the reliability of the information presented, and the relevance of the subject matter of scientific publication. Editors in charge do not change the decision to publish the article unless there are serious misunderstandings regarding the publication. The procedure for reviewing articles by other scholars is clearly defined, and editors in charge are ready to sunbstantiate any deviation from the described procedure. The scientific publication has a well-defined mechanism for the authors to appeal against the editor’s decision. Editors in charge publish full requirements for the articles, notify the date of article submission to the editorial board and the decision to publish.
Relations between Editors and Reviewers. Editors in charge publish full requirements for reviewers, in particular, the requirement to keep the reviewed material confidential. They may require the reviewer to disclose any information about a potential conflict of interest before consenting to the review. Editors in charge follow the procedures for protecting the anonymity of reviewers. In addition, editors in charge have the right: 1) to encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues or possible misconduct concerning the review process; 2) to ask the reviewers to comment on the degree of scientific novelty, originality of the analyzed article and to pay attention to the possibility of duplicate publications or plagiarism (compilation); 3) if possible, to provide reviewers with tools to improve access to publications that are directly related to the peer-reviewed article (e.g., hyperlinks to cited articles and bibliographic searches); 4) to inform the authors of any comments on their articles made by the reviewers, if they do not contain offensive comments or slander; 5) to note the contribution of the reviewers in the activities of the scientific publication; 6) to analyze the quality of reviewers’ work and take measures to ensure that it is carried out at a high level; 7) to develop and maintain a database of reviewers, to update it based on the result analysis of the review work; 8) to refuse to cooperate with those reviewers who constantly write incorrect, untimely or poor content reviews.
Relations between Editorial Board Members. The responsibilities of the Editors in charge include: 1) to establish procedures for professional review of articles; 2) to perform the functions of scientific publication representatives, support and promotion of the scientific publication, search for the best authors and best articles, analysis of articles submitted for publication, assignments for writing editorials, reviews and commentary on scientific works.
Editors in charge should notify their interests that may affect their objectivity in editing and reviewing articles (conflict of interest). The interests may be intellectual, financial, personal, political, religious, etc.