Ethic norms of publication

Ethical responsibilities of editors of a scientific conference

  1. The editor is obliged to make sure that the manuscript is sent by the corresponding author. Corresponding author is selected by the team of authors without the participation of the editorial board. At the same time, the editor can contact each of the authors at any stage of working with the manuscript on any issues related to review, publication, or proceedings after publication.
  2. The editor is obliged to make sure that the authors of the submitted manuscript do not have a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest, this should be taken into account at all stages of work with the manuscript. The absence or presence of a conflict of interest is indicated by the authors when sending the manuscript to. In addition, the editor takes into account the conflict of interest policy of the conference. 
  3. The editor is obliged to consider the submitted manuscript in accordance with the deadlines provided by the conference.
  4. The editor should evaluate only the scientific novelty of the manuscript and the compliance of the manuscript with the requirements of the conference. The evaluation should not take into account the race, gender, religion, nationality, status, or affiliation of the authors.
  5. The editor reserves the right to reject the manuscript without its evaluation by reviewers in cases of violation of the policy of plagiarism and duplicate manuscripts, authorship policy, inconsistency of the manuscript with the subject of the conference.
  6. The editor can give comments aimed at finalizing the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the conference. The manuscript with comments will be sent to the authors for revision. The editor must respect the intellectual property of the authors, however, if the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the conference and the authors refuse to make the necessary changes, the manuscript may be rejected.
  7. In case of disputes regarding the need to make changes to the content of the manuscript between the editor and the authors, the manuscript will be sent to reviewers without these changes for evaluation. This is allowed only in cases where the changes do not concern the structure of the manuscript, provided for by the requirements of the conference, as well as the conference's policy principles and bioethics.
  8. If the editor has a conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript or its authors, he is obliged to immediately transfer the manuscript for evaluation to another editor.
  9. The editor decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the opinion of experts, which will be obtained at the stage of double-blind peer review except as provided in paragraph 5 of the Ethical Responsibilities of Editors of a scientific conference.
  10. If the manuscript was rejected, the editor is obliged to remove the manuscript and accompanying documents from the editorial office. These materials may not be used further in any way. At the same time, all correspondence conducted with the authors of the article by e-mail is stored and can be used in case of need for future proceedings regarding the sent manuscript, while the personal data of the authors will be stored in accordance with EU GDPR 2016/679
  11. The editor does not have the right to disclose any data of the manuscript to third parties in the course of working on the manuscript before its publication, except for specialists involved at the stage of double-blind peer review.
  12. The editor does not have the right to submit the manuscript for publication without confirmation of authorship and the permission of the authors for publication, regulated by the license agreement, which is concluded between the publisher of the conference and the authors of the manuscript.
  13. In the event that a conflict of interest, falsification of data, or plagiarism is identified after the publication of the manuscript, the editor must act in accordance with the policy of the conference
  14. Please note that the decision to index the conference in databases and other indexing resources of world scientific periodicals does not depend on the editorial board of the conference and is not part of the publishing process. By submitting an article for publication, the author agrees that at the time of publication of the issue with the published author's article, the indexing of the conference in any of the databases and other indexing resources of world scientific periodicals may be changed. The editors guarantee up-to-date information about the indexing of the conference.

Ethical obligations of authors

  1. The fact of sending the manuscript is a confirmation that all authors of the manuscript have read the policy of the conference and requirements for the design of manuscripts.
  2. When submitting a manuscript, authors must confirm the absence or existence of a conflict of interest. Where there is a conflict of interest, it should be detailed what the conflict of interest is.
  3. Everyone who is included in the list of authors of the manuscript must have a significant contribution to the conduct of the study, the processing of the results obtained, or the preparation of the manuscript. Individuals and institutions that have made any contribution to the study or manuscript that are not sufficient to be included in the list of authors should be credited in the acknowledgment section.
  4. Authors must accurately describe the study in the manuscript and format the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the conference.
    All principles of bioethics must be observed. The text of the manuscript must contain, if appropriate, the fact that the study complies with international standards, laws, etc., the number of the protocol and the date of the conclusion of the local commission on bioethics, the fact that the participants agreed with the study.
  5. A manuscript cannot be submitted to a conference if it has been previously published or is under consideration in another conference. If the manuscript has been previously submitted to another conference, authors should ensure that it is removed and will not be published in that conference.
  6. The author is not allowed to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same study.
  7. All published studies by other authors that were used by the authors of the submitted manuscript for literature review, citation, etc. should be indicated in the list of references and corresponding references in the text of the manuscript.
  8. The author must finalize the manuscript in accordance with the requirements of the conference and the recommendations of the reviewers. In cases of disputes regarding changes in the manuscript, the author may contact the editor or conference manager to start a scientific discussion.
  9. The remark and/or comment of editors and reviewers can be removed and will not be taken into account when making a decision on publication only if there is an appropriate result of a scientific discussion between the authors and the editor or reviewers of the conference. Authors can provide a scientific rationale for why they disagree with a request to make certain changes. The editors take into account the opinions of the authors and respect the intellectual property of the authors, however, when resolving such disputes, only scientific arguments and justifications will be taken into account.
    If the authors refuse to make changes to the manuscript at the request of editors or reviewers without proper scientific justification, the manuscript will be rejected.
  10. At each stage, the editor may request confirmation regarding the conflict of interest, the author's contribution, or confirmation of the receipt of scientific results described in the manuscript. At the same time, confidential data will not be passed on to third parties.

Ethical responsibilities of manuscript reviewers

  1. The reviewer does not have the right to use the manuscript in any way other than its scientific evaluation.
  2. If the reviewer cannot evaluate the manuscript or has a conflict of interest, he must immediately inform the editor about this and the manuscript will be transferred to another specialist.
  3. If the reviewer needs advice from third-party experts on any issues, to evaluate a certain aspect of the manuscript, etc., he should indicate this to the editor. The reviewer can also make recommendations about who the editors can contact for additional scientific evaluation. The reviewer does not have the right to transfer the manuscript to third parties, even for the purpose of its scientific evaluation.
  4. The reviewer receives the manuscript without any information about its authors, which is justified by the conference's double-blind peer review policy.  However, this factor does not affect the scientific evaluation of the manuscript.
  5. The editor can re-apply to the reviewer to assess the correctness of the changes made by the authors.
  6. The decision to accept a manuscript for publication is made by the editor of the conference. The decision is based on reviews submitted by at least two experts. If necessary, the editor also attracts additional specialists.
  7. When evaluating a manuscript, the reviewer should take into account the requirements and policies of the conference. If the reviewer has any doubts in this regard, he can ask the editor for help.
  8. The review procedure involves filling out a form developed by the editors of the conference. However, the reviewer may not be limited to this form and give additional comments or give marks on the text of the manuscript without changing the text of the manuscript, if appropriate.
  9. The review form cannot be transferred to third parties and used for anything other than filling it out to evaluate a particular manuscript. The editors can change the form of review at their discretion, including in it questions that are important for the evaluation of the manuscript.
  10. The reviewer must respect the intellectual property of the authors. All assessments of the quality of the submitted manuscript must be scientifically substantiated, confirming the judgments of the reviewer. Any statement that any observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by an appropriate citation.