The future of science in general and the scientific publishing sphere depends largely not only on compliance with laws and regulations, but also on compliance with the principles of ethical relations between members of the scientific and publishing community. This is the key to increasing the number of high-quality scientific publications, as well as the successful development of mutual cooperation between authors, publishers and readers of scientific publications. The general experience of ethical behavior is collected in a single document – the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications (hereinafter referred to as the Code), developed by the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications.
The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications combines and reveals the general principles and rules that should guide the interactions of participants in the process of scientific publications: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.
Basic terms:
The ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.
Editor – a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepares materials for publication, as well as maintains communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.
An author is a person or a group of persons (a team of authors) involved in the creation of a publication of the results of a scientific study.
Reviewer – an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of copyrighted materials in order to determine the possibility of their publication.
Publisher – a legal or natural person who publishes a scientific publication.
Reader – any person who has read the published materials.
Plagiarism is the deliberate appropriation of the authorship of someone else’s work of science or art, someone else’s ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law, and as such may incur legal liability.
Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editor and publisher
In its activities, the editor is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which imposes the need to follow the following fundamental principles:
— When making a decision on publication, the editor of a scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the presentation of data and the scientific significance of the work in question.
— The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors.
– Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
— The editor should not allow information to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.
– The editor, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and also, if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.
Ethical principles in the activities of the reviewer
The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of copyright materials, as a result of which his actions must be unbiased, consisting in the implementation of the following principles:
— A manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document that cannot be passed on for review or discussion to third parties who do not have permission from the editors.
— The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated results of the study. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
– Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
– A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the editor about this with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript.
Principles to be followed by the author of scientific publications
– The author (or a team of authors) is aware that he bears the initial responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following principles:
— The authors of the article must provide reliable results of the research. Knowingly erroneous or falsified statements are unacceptable.
— Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be formalized with the obligatory