At all stages of the editorial and publishing cycle, the editorial staff of the Journal of Advanced Materials and Technologies is guided by international standards of ethics of scientific publications, as well as traditional ethical principles of Russian scientific periodicals.
The editorial board supports the principles and provisions set out in:
- The Declaration "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications" adopted by the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers;
- The Core Practices developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2017 and replaced the previously existing Codes of Conduct (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers);
- Recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (CSE);
- Recommendations of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE);
- The provisions of the authoritative international publishers (Elsevier, Springer, MDPI).
The editorial board emphasizes the special importance and relevance of the provisions of the document "5 prohibitions of Academic publication" ("FiveNos"), issed by the Chinese Association of Science and Technology (CAST).
The editorial board also studies the principles and provisions of non-core scientific communities in order to analyze the best practices in the field of research ethics, including:
- Guidelines for the management, reporting, editing and publication of scientific papers in medical journals developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE);
- Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), prepared by the CONSORT Group in order to create complete and transparent reporting on randomized trials;
- Ethics cases prepared by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME);
- Recommendations of the Office of Research Integrity ORI;
- San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), developed as part of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB);
- Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications;
- Journal Publishing Practices and Standards (JPPS) developed by the International Network for Advancing Science and Policy (INASP).
The editorial board of the Journal of Advanced Materials and Technologies believes in the academic integrity and responsibility of all research participants. We are sure that our authors and reviewers are also familiar with the full versions of these documents.
The following books issued within the framework of the activities of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers were also used in the development of this section:
Ethical Principles in the Author's Activity
Authorship of the publication
Authorship should be based on the actual contribution of each member of the author's team. All authors should make a significant scientific contribution to the research and should agree with the presentation of the results and conclusions of the work.
The generally accepted criteria for authorship are:
1) a significant contribution to the concept and design of the study or the receipt and analysis of data and its interpretation;
2) making the first version of the article or substantially reworking its important intellectual content;
3) final approval of the article for publication;
4) agreement to be responsible for all aspects of the work and to ensure that issues related to the accuracy and integrity of all parts of the work are properly considered and resolved.
Specified criteria are basic and should be considered individually for each study, taking into account its specifics. These criteria should not be used as a means of manipulating and excluding a scientist who has made a significant contribution to the study (for example, compliance with paragraph 1 when removed from the possibility of working under paragraphs 2 and 3). The decision on the inclusion of an author should be made exclusively by the author's team. Position, age, gender, race, and religious beliefs should not affect the definition of the authors of the article. Influence on the decision to include the authors of the organization's leaders, sponsors and other persons is unacceptable. Thus, authorship models should be flexible for different types of research.
The decision on the order of authors should be made exclusively by the author's team. As a rule, this order is determined by the contribution of each scientist to the research.
If it is not possible to reach an agreement on who can be qualified as an author, as well as on the order of authors, the resolution of the disputed issue should be decided in the institution where the research was performed, or by colleagues who do not have a conflict of interest with any of the co-authors. The participation of the editor of the journal in solving this issue is excluded.
Selling co-authorship, gift co-authorship, invisible co-authorship are not only a violation of ethical standards, but can be defined as fraud. The editorial board promotes responsible authorship practices, so it recommends providing information about the specific contribution of each author to the content of the article.
The editors do not recommend contacting intermediary agencies, as the reputation of many companies does not correspond to the ethical principles of the journal. Receiving an article from such an agency means contacting the editor with each of the co-authors and re-passing the editorial and publishing cycle in accordance with the requirements of the journal, including the requirement to justify authorship to each of the co-authors.
Making changes to the list of authors or changing the order of mentioning authors after the submission of the manuscript is possible only if you send a statement of consent from all the authors mentioned in the list to the requested change, as well as from the author whose name should be removed or added. The application must contain a detailed and reasonable explanation of the changes made.
The names of persons who have contributed to the preparation of the manuscript that is not sufficient for recognition of authorship, with their consent, are given in the "Acknowledgements" section, indicating their contribution to the work (for example, scientific advice, data collection, administrative support, technical editing, linguistic editing and proofreading, etc.).
The author responsible for the correspondence must be selected. The author who is in correspondence with the editorial board must obtain permission to transfer the article and materials to it from other co-authors. He ensures that all co-authors familiar with the latest version of the article submitted to the editorial office, and all persons who have made a significant contribution to the study are included in the list of authors or are included in the Acknowledgments list. The corresponding author notifies his co-authors of all changes and suggestions from the editorial board of the journal and does not make decisions on the article alone, without the written consent of all co-authors. Authors are required to participate in the review process, including responding to all the comments of the reviewer, agreeing with them or arguing a different point of view from the reviewer. The editorial board may request additional information from the corresponding author, as well as send requests to all co-authors at the specified e-mail addresses.
Objectivity and reliability
The author guarantees that the article and its materials are original, not previously published in Russian or other languages. Reissue of materials, including those previously published in another language, is unacceptable without notifying the editors and providing copies of such works. The practice of duplicating the publication of a single manuscript in different languages is unacceptable.
The author guarantees that the research was conducted in accordance with ethical and legal norms. The author guarantees that the results of the study are not influenced. Possible conflicts of interest are presented to the editorial board of the journal, as well as all sources of funding are indicated.
The results of the research are presented in the context of previous research of other scientists. The review of the conducted research is as complete and reliable as possible, reflecting the information regardless of whether they correspond to the author's hypothesis.
The author guarantees that the article contains all the data about the conducted research, i.e. the author avoids unjustified division of the article into parts (salamislicing) in order to increase the number of published papers. The manuscript contains sufficient data and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. The method and protocols are described in such a way that another researcher is able to reproduce it in their own research.
The author guarantees that the data and their interpretation presented in the article are complete and reliable. There is no deliberate concealment of data that may affect the results of the study, falsification of data (including image manipulation) in the article. Deliberately erroneous statements, selective or ambiguous statements of facts, and deliberate choice of research methods to support a particular conclusion are unacceptable.
Authors should notify the editorial board of any errors found in the study at all stages of its publication, including those in the published paper.
Recognition of primary sources, plagiarism and citation
Recognition of the contribution of other persons is mandatory, so for any material (fragments of text, tables, drawings, photographs, etc.) that the author borrows from other papers, the original source must be indicated. The authors guarantee that the original manuscript is presented; when using the papers, statements, and ideas of other authors, appropriate bibliographic references are provided. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Any technical means that artificially increase the uniqueness of the text are unacceptable and constitute a gross violation of ethical standards.
Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the submitted paper, and it is desirable to refer to the original source, and not to review articles. When performing a literary review, authors should evaluate the scientific content of research, and not the indicators of the publication activity of the journal or a particular author. Any form of citation manipulation is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable to use data without the written permission of the original source if it is obtained privately: in the course of correspondence, conversation, discussion. It is unacceptable to use data obtained from confidential sources without the written permission of the authors of the paper.
Data Access
Reproducibility of scientific research is an important part of its integrity, reliability, and value to the scientific community. Authors are encouraged to deposit publicly the original data, i.e. to provide access to complete sets of experimental data so that the results can be reproduced. The data availability statement should contain detailed information about where data supporting the reported results can be found, and include links to publicly available data archives. Any ethical and legal restrictions must be clearly stated in the data availability statement when submitting the application. If the data is not publicly available, it may be requested for submission to the editorial board or reviewers. Authors are encouraged to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
Ethical Principles of the Reviewer's Activity
Responsibility
The review process is a contribution to ensuring the objectivity of research, the reliability of their presentation in publication and to the development of scientific knowledge in general. The reviewer must understand that he is a part of the scientific community, he needs a high-quality assessment of his work, so he must treat the review process responsibly and in good faith.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewing is an important link in the review of the manuscript. The reviewer's opinion helps the editor-in-chief to make a decision about the publication. The author, in turn, taking into account the comments of the reviewer, can significantly improve the quality of his work. The reviewer must provide accurate and professional information about his/her knowledge and experience. The lack of qualification of the reviewer in any issue considered in the manuscript is a reason for refusing to review. If the reviewer can evaluate a certain part of the manuscript, he should clearly describe the limits of his knowledge in a particular area.
Executive capacity
The reviewer should promptly respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame, even if he/she cannot undertake the review. The reviewer must prepare the review within the proposed or jointly agreed deadline, and notify the editor if additional review time is needed. The reviewer must comply with ethical requirements in the field of peer review, as well as follow the journal's review policy. If the reviewer does not agree with the review policy of the journal (for example, with the type of accepted review), this is a reason to reject the review.
Confidentiality
The review is conducted confidentially. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and information is not subject to disclosure. The manuscripts may not be shown or discussed with other persons, except those authorized by the editorial board. It is unethical to agree to review a manuscript in order to get acquainted with its content.
Standards of objectivity
The expert opinion should be objective, specific and based on the quality of the work itself. Reviewers should clearly express their point of view, supporting it with appropriate arguments. The review should contain constructive comments that will help the authors improve their work. Reviewers should indicate additional works that may expand the research, but were not considered and taken into account by the author. Unsubstantiated recommendations to include references to the work of the reviewer (or his colleagues) in the publication in order to increase the citation are unacceptable. Personal criticism of the author(s) and baseless accusations are unacceptable. The influence of personal, financial and other circumstances, as well as intellectual preferences, is unacceptable. Race, gender, citizenship, religious or other beliefs can’t influence the reviewer's decision.
Fairness
Any statement published earlier must contain a reference to the original source. The editors expect that the primary sources will be indicated not only in direct citations, but also in the case of other types of integration of materials from other studies into the paper. Reviewers should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published data that they are personally aware of. Reviewers must immediately inform the editor if they find illegal borrowing (including self-plagiarism), errors, falsification of data, and other unfair and unethical facts.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest
Reviewers are required to declare all possible conflicts of interest (personal, professional, financial and other relationships and interests, including competing relationships with the author of paper; participation in a joint research project; scientific guidance) and contact the editor if they are not sure whether a certain situation contains a conflict of interest or not. Reviewers are required to contact the editor if, after preparing their review, they have learned facts that could indicate a possible conflict of interest, as well as influence their initial opinion and recommendations.
It is unacceptable to use unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscript in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained in the review process and related to possible competitive advantages should remain confidential, and they should not be used for personal gain.
Ethical Principles in the Publisher’s Activities
The publisher must comply with the international standards of ethics of scientific publications and follow the principles that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors and the editorial board, authors, and reviewers.
The publisher must follow the principle of editorial independence and create conditions for its implementation. Financial, personal and other interests should not influence the decisions made by the publisher, and the relations with the editor of the journal, the authors and other participants of the publication process.
The publisher must respect the right to confidentiality of personal information (authors, reviewers and other participants of the publication process).
The publisher must promote the protection of intellectual property and copyright.
The publisher should promote the integrity and transparency of each published article, including with respect to conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics.
In cases of alleged violations of the principles of ethics of scientific publications, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editorial board, should take all necessary measures to clarify the situation.
The publisher is obliged to support the editor of the journal in the consideration of claims arising from ethical issues, and to help interact with other participants of the publication process, other journals and / or publishers, if this contributes to the proper performance of the editor's duties.
The publisher is obliged to assist the parties responsible for investigating cases of unfair research and publication practices, and to facilitate the resolution of these issues within the scope of its authority.
The publisher must provide, if necessary, appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice).
The publisher must ensure the journal's publications in time, as well as the publication of amendments to the article, doubts about the article, corrections, apologies, refutations, or retract unfair articles.