научно - методический и информационный журнал Вестник НЦБЖД

These provisions are a set of ethical rules that guide the editors of the scientific-methodical and information journal «Vestnik NTsBZhD» in the course of its activities.

The editorial board of the journal complies with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and does its best to prevent any violations of these norms. This statement is based on recommendations and standards developed by the Ethics Committee for Scientific Publications (COPE - https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct), and includes the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors. Such a policy is a prerequisite for fruitful participation of the journal in the development of an integrated system of knowledge.

Ethical principles that should guide the author of scientific publications.


«Vestnik NTsBZhD» is an interdisciplinary journal. Articles submitted for publication should be oriented on a wide range of specialists in the field of life safety. The results of experiments and computational experiments submitted by the authors should be reproducible. The information presented in figures and tables should be clear and technically replicable, the captions to the illustrations should be informative and understandable without reference to the main text of the article.

Originality and novelty of the work, author’s roster.

The authors guarantee that the manuscript submitted to the journal is the result of their work. The authors guarantee that the co-authors’ list of order is mutually agreed. In the “Acknowledgments” section the article should mention the persons or organizations that provided financial or other means of support in carrying out a scientific study, the results of which are presented in the article. The authors also guarantee that the material presented in the work was never published anywhere before and is not being prepared for other publication at the moment.

Citing sources

Authors should ensure that they properly refer to publications that were used or were relevant to the submitted work, including their own previously published articles and research materials.

On the one hand, the authors should refer to the previously obtained and published results used in their work, even if these results were obtained long ago or published in another language. On the other hand, the authors should understand that the inclusion of their work or works of other scientists in the list of cited sources, done, exclusively or generally, in pursuance of the goal of raising their scientometrical indicators or scientometrical indicators of publications where these works are published, is unacceptable.

Conflict of interest

All authors agree to submit the manuscript for publication and are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest contained in it - professional or financial, which can be interpreted as affecting the results of the evaluation of their manuscript.

Error correction

If the authors find a significant error or inaccuracy in their directed, accepted for publication or already published work, their responsibility is to notify the editorial board or the publisher about it and to cooperate urgently in order to publish the refutation or correction of the article.

Relationship with the editors

If the author was denied publication, the correspondence with the editors, including the review, is treated as confidential information for official use and cannot be made public without the consent of the editors. Nevertheless, the authors are entitled to use the information and advice received from the reviewer in preparing their future publications.

If the manuscript was sent for processing, authors must do so within a specified period. If they are forced to delay the manuscript, this should be reported to the editor. If the authors refuse to process the manuscript or send the manuscript for publication in another scientific journal, this should also be reported to the editor.

Ethical principles in the work of the reviewer

Privacy policy

Confidential information, scientific ideas and the results obtained by reviewers from the accepted manuscript are not subject to disclosure and use for personal purposes. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document for the service user. Works are not subject to demonstration and discussion to third parties without the consent of the editor responsible for this work or the chief editor (his deputy).

Standards of objectivity and impartiality

Reviews should be objective and reasoned. The reviewer does not have the right to impose the authors to quote their own works and to make the results of the review dependent on this. If, nevertheless, the work of the reviewer actually plays an important role in the considered area, but was missed by the authors, the reviewer should, pointing out this shortcoming, report the conflict of interest to the editor.

Conflict of interest

If it turns out that there is a conflict of interests of a scientific or material nature between the reviewer and one of the authors, the reviewer should immediately notify the editor and refuse to review the manuscript.

Reviewers role

The reviewer must understand that his or her role and influence on the results of the review of the manuscript is very significant, so he or she should conduct its qualified and, as far as possible, detailed objective analysis. Reviewers are required to clearly express their opinions and back them up with appropriate arguments.

In assessment, the reviewer should be guided by the assumption that the authors conscientiously approached their work and the shortcomings in the manuscript arose unintentionally. Therefore, if the manuscript cannot be published in its present form, but the results presented in it are original and significant from a scientific point of view, the purpose of the review should be to indicate to the authors the flaws in order to eliminate them (and, if possible, to indicate ways to eliminate these flaws).

The reviewer should try to formulate all comments on the work in the first review. If this is not possible due to the fact that the manuscript was substantially redone, the reviewer has the right to make new claims only to those parts of the text that have undergone significant revision or have been written anew. The presentation of new claims to the already reviewed text during the re-review is considered unethical.

Manuscript evaluation

The review should highlight the positive aspects of the presented work, reveal the shortcomings of the work and give constructive advice on the necessary improvement of the work. Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript, and identify those fragments of the manuscript that do not contain references to the original sources. Reviewers should pay the editor’s attention to finding significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work known to reviewers. They should also inform the editor of any doubts they have about the ethical acceptability of the study set out in the manuscript. The reviewer's assessment should be determined by the scientific merit of the work, the importance of the research topic and the profile of the journal.

Fulfillment of commitments

The reviewer assumes the obligation to provide a review of the manuscript within 4 weeks (unless otherwise specified by the editor). If he or she cannot provide a review at the appointed time for any reason, the editor must be notified. It should be understood that the deliberate delay in reviewing or neglect of the review process is contrary to generally accepted ethical standards.

Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editorial board

Editors Responsibilities

The editor is responsible for the quality of published materials and their compliance with the journal profile, ensures the internal integrity of the journal, offering corrections that improve the quality of articles, including additional sources of data (applications, videos, etc.) in publications. The editor is responsible for the progress of the review process and ensures the timing and quality of the review. The editor is responsible for preserving the authenticity of the article, in case of errors, prints the necessary corrections or changes, as well as apologies for the mistakes made as quickly as possible. The editor should not allow the publication of information, if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarized.

The editor works with potential authors in order to attract the most interesting works for publication in the journal.

Making decisions

The decision to accept the manuscript for publication is the prerogative of the editorial board. As a rule, the decision is made by the chief editor or his deputy, if they have not delegated this right to other members of the editorial board. The editorial board should avoid conflicts of interest and have no right to make direct decisions on the manuscripts in which they are authors or whose authors are subordinate to them.

The editorial board is responsible for resolving disputes between authors and reviewers, between authors and editors, between reviewers and editors, on the basis of an open and honest exchange of views. In this case, they all must adhere to the generally accepted standards of politeness.


Manuscripts are evaluated solely in accordance with their intellectual content, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.


The editorial board does not submit a manuscript for familiarization or for copying to third parties with the exception of reviewers. In addition, the editorial board should make every effort to ensure the anonymity of the review, i.e. must not inform the authors about the reviewers.

Withdrawal (retraction) of publication

In the event of the discovery of a publication of knowingly false data, plagiarism, multiple submission of an article for publication or other serious violations, the article may be withdrawn from publication during the preparation of the journal for publication. If the article has already been published, the relevant information should be printed in the journal, and information about the withdrawal (retraction) of this article is transmitted to the international citation databases. Such an article is excluded from the databases of published articles. Decisions on such actions and the associated liability rests entirely with the editor of the journal.