Ethical Aspects of Editorial Policy

The Editorial Policy is based on the traditional ethical principles of domestic scientific periodicals, taking into account the ethical work of editors and publishers. The process of reviewing is aimed at improveing the quality of published materials and overcome prejudice and injustice in declining or accepting articles.

Peer reviewers should:

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner

• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal

• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others

• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest

• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations

• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments

• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner

• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise

• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

In case of a conflict of interests, reviewer’s professional or personal ties with the author, which may affect the judgment of the reviewer, he / she must return the article, pointing to a conflict of interest;

Accuse of plagiarism requires the reviewers’ reasoned justification of their own comments. Any assertion of a plagiarism or biased citation should be accompanied by appropriate references;

If the reviewer hesitates about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he/she should necessarily apply to the editorial board with the requirement for collective examination of the author’s article.