The journal "Vestnik NTSBGD" (hereinafter - the editors) approaches responsibly to the task of maintaining the scientific reputation. Our journal publishes scientific papers, and we are responsible for their compliance with the highest standards. Editors conforms the recommendations of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Committee of Publication Ethics), and also takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers. The editors of the journal "Vestnik NTSBGD" makes every effort to comply with ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community, and prevent any violations of these rules. Such a policy is requirement for effective participation of the journal in the development of integral system of knowledge.
Chief Editor’s Responsibility
These instructions correspond to the editorial policy and standards of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).
The Editor in Chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers to the journal should be published.
This decision should always be based on the verification of work and its importance for researchers and readers. The Editor in Chief may be guided by the methodological recommendations developed by the Editorial Board and legal requirements such as the avoidance of libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Also, the Editor in Chief under the decision made on the publication may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers (or representatives of scientific and teaching staff).
The Editor in Chief, assesses the submitted work of their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion.
The Editor in Chief, shall not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone else, except the author, reviewers, consultants of the Editorial Board, as well as the publisher.
Unpublished materials contained in the submitted work for consideration cannot be used in the work of the Editor in Chief, members of the Editorial Board, reviewers, and other personnel involved for working with the material submitted for the consideration, without author’s letter of consent.
Proprietary information received in referee process does not pertain to public disclosure or using it for personal proposes.
The Editor in Chief engages to provide accordance of reviewing procedure of the articles, submitted to the journal.
The Editor in Chief should take quick action at entry of complaints of an ethical nature regarding the submission of the manuscript or published article, having contact with the editorial board and the editorial staff. Such measures typically include a notice of the author, and the consideration of the complaint, as well as the need for further communication with the relevant institutions and research organizations. In the case of confirmation of the validity of the complaint correction, retraction or other appropriate comment is published. Every complaint of ethical nature shall be considered, even at entry a few years later after publication.
Authors of papers containing the results of original research are required to submit a detailed report on the work done, as well as objective arguments in favor of its relevance. The paper must be given accurate information confirming the obtained results. The paper should contain details and references necessary to confirm the work done. Submission of false facts is considered as a violation of the ethical code and is unacceptable.
Reviews and professional articles should be objective and contain valid information.
The authors guarantee that the submitted manuscript is original work. If the authors have used the work and / or text fragments of the other authors, they provide relevant references to published work. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including unregistered quote or paraphrase the assignment of rights to the results of other people's research are unethical and unacceptable.
It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons somehow influenced the course of the study in particular the reference to the work that had the significance in the research must be submitted in the paper. The authors cannot provide the manuscript to the journal, which was sent to another journal and is under the consideration, as well as articles already published in another journal. It is considered as a gross violation of editorial ethics. All persons who have made significant contributions to the study must be pointed out by co-authors of the article. Among the co-authors the designation of persons that are not involved in the study is unacceptable. If the author found significant errors or inaccuracies in the article on the stage of the examination or after its publication, he must notify of the editors as soon as possible.
Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical behavior. This is an unacceptable fact.
It is necessary to properly acknowledge the work of other researchers. Authors should provide links to publications that have influenced the content of the described work.
Article, in case of acceptance for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyright is reserved by the authors.
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or any other substantive conflict of interest that could be construed as affecting the results of the evaluation of the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be required to specify, are: employment, advisory services, shareholding, fee, paid expertise, patents, grants and other funding. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, his duty is immediately to notify the Chief Editor about it and cooperate with the editor to publish a retraction or correction of the paper. If the Editor in Chief knows from a third person that the published work contains a significant error, the responsibility of the author is an urgent refutation or correction of the paper or presentation of the proof of the published work correctness to the Editor in Chief
Each paper is reviewed by at least two experts who have all the opportunities to express reasoned criticisms freely regarding the level and clarity of the presented material, its journal profile, novelty and reliability of results matching.
The reviewer must
1. Determine of aptness of the material presented in the article the profile of the magazine.
2. Assess the relevance of the paper content: Does the level of the material contained in it match the modern achievements of science and technology?
3. Assess the significance of the results of research (scientific, practical).
4. Indicate whether the requirements for registration of the material of the paper are taken into account: volume of papers, abstracts presence in Russian and English, the availability of the bibliography and references to it in the text, contact information about the authors and etc.
5. Write a qualitative and / or quantitative evaluation of the material given in the paper:
- In fact;
6. Evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the presented data.
7. Evaluate the correctness and accuracy of used (or input) definitions and wording.
8. Assess the literary style of presentation.
9. Give founded conclusions about the article as a whole, the comments, if it is necessary the recommendations on its improving.
The procedure of reviewing helps the Chief Editor in the decision about publication, also the Chief Editor can communicate with the author of the work. Reviewing is an integral part of scientific communication and the basis of the scientific method used in the magazine.
Any job welcomed for reflection is considered as a confidential document. The works are not subject to the demonstration and discussion with other persons, except persons authorized by the editor.
Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism to the author is unacceptable. Reviewers are required to clearly express their opinion and support it with appropriate arguments.
|The recognition of fragments of published works cited without reference is the responsibility of the reviewer. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been expressed earlier should be accompanied by appropriate reference. The reviewer must also draw attention of the Chief Editor to the similarity provided by the article with any other known published work to the reviewer.
Unpublished materials contained in the present study cannot be used in the reviewer’s study without the author’s written consent. Confidential information obtained in the review process, shall not be disclosed or used for personal gain. The reviewer has to refuse the examination of the given work in the presence of a conflict of interest arising out of competition, cooperation, or other kind of relations with authors and institutions associated with the work.