Functions of the editorial board:

• the editorial board will definitely consider all submitted data;
• in an honest and independent way decides as for the access to the data of the publication, revering the author and his copyrights;
• sticks to a high standards policy of publication of data and the publishing industry, and also a high level of scientific asset of published data;
• sticks to the basic principles of qualitative works that are published: fullness of published data, trustworthiness of information and originality of presentation;
• improves the institution of reviewing and editing;
• detects the presence of plagiarism in the material;
• decides as for the admission of the article to publication, considering the comments of the reviewers;
  • communicates with the authors and reports the results of the review.

 

Ethics of editors:

1. The submitted data undergo checking. The article can be returned to the author by the editorial board for rework, taking into account comments of the reviewers.
2. The editorial board must consider all received materials, evaluate them objectively and essentially.
3. The editorial board must in a timely manner, without exception, examine all the received materials.
4. The responsibility of the editors is to accept materials or refuse to publish them. The editors are entitled not to verify materials if they are not accepted for publication.
5. The editors have respect for the immaterial goods of all authors.

Ethics of authors:

1. The author refers to the study findings, which are in line with the goals and topics of the journal.
2. Educational materials must contain details and have links to sources. So that the reviewer can completely reveal the theme of the issue.
3. The author has to cite the materials that affected the kind of study and those that quickly give the reader the associations with the earlier works necessary for a better understanding of the study. The author is held liable for searching the materials to cite publications depicting other works on this topic. Core information given by the author in the work should contain necessary links to sources, if it was not given by the author.
4. Avoiding fragmentation of the material is needed.
5. Sending an article for publication, the author has to give the editor the information of the appropriate data that are in editorial revision or in print. It is necessary to give the editor copies of data with an indication of the relationship of these materials with the ones given before.
6. It is prohibited to send one more article describing the same study to more than one journal. An exception should be re-submission of data that were rejected / removed from publication.
7. The source of information cited by the author in the work, except for the generally known must be indicated by the author. Information received while personal conversation, correspondence or in discussion with third parties can be used in the work only with permission of the researcher who gave the information. The same applies to the information during peer review of manuscripts, grant applications and other confidential services.
8. Data co-authors can be people who have made a significant scientific contribution to the work and share responsibility for the results. Other contributions must be given in a footnote or in the Acknowledgments section.

Ethics of reviewers:

1. Three key aspects of reviewing process are clearness, transparency and fairness of the publication process.
2. The reviewer must inform the editors if he thinks that he is not competent enough in the subject matter of the materials. If the reviewer does not have enough competence in the issue he must obligatorily report this to the editor.
3. The quality of the materials received must be objectively assessed by the reviewer, as well as the performed experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation in compliance with high scientific and literary norms. The reviewer has to respect the intellectual property of the author.
4. The reviewer should take into account that there can be a possible conflict of interest if the peer-reviewed data have close relations to the work of the reviewer, which is being developed or published. In case of conflict of interest, the editorial board of the journal has to be notified by the reviewer.
5. The reviewer has no right to assess the work in case it was created together with a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional relations. These relations can influence the peer review outcomes.
6. The reviewer should keep confidential the information given in the work during the review. Reviewers have the right to use or reveal unpublished data, arguments or interpretations in the obtained material, only after receiving the consent of the author.
7. The opinions of the reviewers must be clear for the editors and authors to better understand the main point of the review.
8. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to carry out one’s work with no delay and provide a report on time