Artificial intelligence

Scientific journal

ISSN 2710-1673

ONLINE: ISSN 2710-1681

Publishing Ethics

The Editorial Board of the journal adheres to the following rules to uphold publishing ethics:

  • strict adherence to the basic principles of the publication: scientific method, objectivity, professionalism, information support of the most important innovative research;
  • unconditional loyalty to all participants of the creative process involved in the journal publication;
  • usage of double-blind review, the involvement of impartial competent reviewers;
  • conduction of constant consultative work with the Authors, aimed at meeting the formatting and content requirements of the international databases SCOPUS and Web of Science.

The Editorial Board of the journal is guided by the following documents:

  • Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications of the Nonprofit Organization the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) -
  • Code of conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors - Committee on Publication Ethics.
  • Publishing Ethics, Publishing Ethics Resource Kit - Elsevier.

Editorial ethics is the set of guidelines that regulate relationships between members of the Editorial Board, External Reviewers, and Authors. The Editor-in-Chief (Managing Editor) leads the publication's team of editors, makes decisions on key issues, considers all disputes regarding compliance with the commitments, makes a final decision on publishing the issue and gives permission to post materials on the website.ё 

Ethical Responsibilities of the Editor

The Editor is responsible for the publishing of the scientific article. The decision to publish a scientific article should be based on the validity and scientific significance of the work. The Editor is responsible for following all the recommendations for the submitted article. The Editor can consult with Reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of a scientific article. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editors do not provide other persons with any information related to the contents of the manuscript under review, except for those who participate in the professional review of the article (authors, reviewers, possible reviewers, and other scientific consultants). The Editor must deal with all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each and everyone regardless of racial background, religion, national affiliation, or the position or place of work of the Author(s). The responsibility of the manuscript being accepted or rejected rests with the Editor.

A responsible and considered approach to the performance of these duties implies that the Editor takes into account the recommendation of the Reviewer - Doctor (Candidate) of Sciences in the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and validity of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscript can be rejected without peer review if the Editor believes that the research paper does not match the journal scope or it contains unscientific claims. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the personal research without the express written consent of the Authors.. Privileged information or ideas obtained as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. The article is published in the journal and placed on the corresponding Internet sources after a final positive editorial decision on the manuscript. The Editor must take into account the intellectual independence of the Authors. If the submitted manuscript is written by the Editor or member of the Editorial Board the responsibilities and authority of the editor must be delegated to another qualified person.

If the Editor receives convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the Editor should point out these errors and, if possible, correct them. This message to the Author may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an independent expert. The Editorial Board is not responsible for the possible non-economic and economic damages caused by the publication of the article. The Editorial Board has the right to withdraw an already published paper if someone's rights or universally recognized standards of scientific ethics have been violated throughout the publication process. The Editorial Board should inform the Author who submitted the article, the Reviewer who recommended it or the organization about the fact of retraction.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Authors

The main responsibility of the Author is to present a detailed report on the research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

Authors of the original research articles should provide valid results of the conducted work, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The fundamental research data should be provided without mistakes. The article should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately false statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked for primary data related to the manuscript for review by the Editors. Authors should be ready to provide open access to this type of information. At any rate, the Authors should preserve data for a sufficient period of time after the publication.

Authors should ensure originality of the work. If other works or statements are used in the paper, the Author should provide appropriate bibliographic references or extracts. Plagiarism can take many forms, as presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without acknowledgment) and claiming authorship for research conducted by someone else. Plagiarism in all its forms is regarded as unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The Author should cite those publications that have made a significant contribution to the research, as well as those that can acquaint the reader with previous works that are important for the understanding of this study. Except for reviews, citations of papers that do not directly correspond to this report should be minimized. The Author is required to conduct a literature search to find and cite original publications describing research closely related to this topic. It is also necessary to properly indicate the sources of fundamentally important materials used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the Author.

The Author should not publish a manuscript devoted to the same research more than ones in the particular journal as the original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to the Collection.

When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the Editor of the related manuscripts submitted or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted to the Editor, and the correspondences of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.

The Authors of the publication are solely individuals who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea, development, implementation or interpretation of the presented research. The individuals who have made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors.

The Authors of the articles are fully responsible for the content of the articles and for the publication.

The Author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of Reviewers or the Editorial Board.

The Author may request certain experts not to be involved in the manuscript reviewing process. However, the Editor may select one or more of these Reviewers based on the importance of their evaluation for an impartial review of the manuscript. For instance, such a decision is made when there are significant inconsistencies between the manuscript and the previous work of a potential Reviewer.

Experimental or theoretical research can serve as a basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Published articles can contain the same kind of critical response. However, personal criticism cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.

Authors should notify the Editor of any potential conflict of interest, such as financial interests of any company that could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors must ensure that there are no legal bond or ownership issues that could affect the publication of the submitted manuscript.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Reviewers

A peer review helps the Editor decide whether a work should be accepted. It can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is an essential step to the scientific process, it is the heart of the scientific approach. All scholars who desire to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work on the review of manuscripts.

If the selected Reviewer is not sure that his/her qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he/she should return the manuscript immediately.

Reviewers should not evaluate the manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted paper.

The Reviewer should make an objective assessment of the manuscript quality, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and meeting of high scientific and literary standards. The Reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the Authors.

The Reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest when a particular manuscript is closely related to the Reviewer's current or published work. If in doubt, the Reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without comment, indicating a conflict of interest.

The Reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript, if he/she is involved in a personal or professional relationship with the Author, and if such a relationship could affect the objectivity of the review.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The manuscript should not be disclosed and discussed with any person who is not involved in the review process. Except for the necessity of the special advice.

Reviewers should explain and justify their comments so that Editors and Authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any claim that an observation, conclusion or argument has been previously published should be accompanied by an appropriate reference.

The Reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation of other scientists that are directly related to the peer-reviewed work. Keep in mind the Reviewer may have their own biases based on the insufficient citation of their own research papers. The Reviewer should draw the Editor's attention to any significant similarities between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.

The Reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify significant papers that are relevant to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript.

The Reviewer should provide feedback in a timely manner.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a Reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the Authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained by the Reviewer as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.

Code of Conduct for Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics

Code of conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors – Committee on Publication Ethics.

Publishing Ethics, Publishing Ethics Resource Kit – Elsevier.