Ethics of scientific publications and editorial policies
Ethics of scientific publications and editorial policies
The editorial board of the journal Eurasian Journal of Physics and Functional Materials is guided in its work by the international ethical rules of scientific publications, including the rules of decency, confidentiality, supervision of publications, consideration of possible conflicts of interest, etc. In its activities, the editorial board followsthe recommendations of the Ethics Committee (Committee on Publication Ethics), and in particular the Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit, as well as the valuable experience of authoritative international journals and publishing houses. Compliance with the rules of the ethics of scientific publications by all participants in this process contributes to ensuring the authors' rights to intellectual property, improving the quality of publicationsin the eyes of the world scientific community and excluding the possibility of misuse of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.
This Regulation corresponds to the policy of the journal and is one of the main components of the review and publication in the journal.
1. Duties of Authors
Authors should realize that they bear personal responsibility for the submitted text of the manuscript, which implies observance of the following principles:
1.1. Submit reliable results of the research. Knowingly untrue, fraudulent or falsified statements are equated to unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
1.2. Participate in the peer review process. The editor-in-chief can ask the authors for the initial data of the scientific article for the editorial review, and the authors should be prepared to provide open access to such data, if possible, and in any case should be prepared to preserve the source materials within a reasonable period of time after their publication.
1.3. Ensure that the results of the research presented in the manuscript represent an independent and original work. In the case of using fragments of the works and / or borrowing the statements of other authors, the article should contain appropriate bibliographic references with the obligatory indication of the author and the source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including quotations without quotation marks, paraphrasing or assigning rights to the results of other scientists, is unethical and unacceptable actions. Articles that are compilations from materials published before by other authors, without their creative processing and their own author's comprehension are not acceptedfor publication by the journal's editorial staff.
1.4. Realize that they bear the initial responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research.
1.5. Recognize the contribution of all persons who somehow influenced the course of the research or determined the content of the submitted scientific work. In particular, the article should have bibliographic references to publications that were of importance for the research. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used without obtaining an open written permission from its source. All sources must be disclosed. Even if written or illustrative materials of a large number of people are used, permission for this should be obtained and submitted to the editorial office.
1.6. Submit to the journal an original manuscript that was not sent to another journal and is not currently under consideration, as well as an article that was not previously published in the other journal. Non-observance of this principle is regarded as a gross violation of the ethics of publications and gives grounds for withdrawing the article from the review. The text of the article should be original, that is, submitted for publication in the presented form in a periodical printed publication for the first time. If the elements of the manuscript were previously published in another article, the authors are obliged to refer to earlier work and indicate the main difference of the new work from the previous one. Verbatim copying of own works and their paraphrasing are unacceptable, they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions.
1.7. Ensure the correct composition of the list of co-authors of the work. Among the co-authors of the article, all persons who have made a significant intellectual contribution to its concept, structure, as well as to the conduction of research or interpretation of the results of the submitted work should be indicated. Other people who participated in some aspects of the work should be thanked. The author must also ensure that all co-authors are familiar with the final version of the article, approve it and agree with its submission for publication. All authors mentioned in the article must bear public responsibility for the content of the article. If the article is a multi-disciplinary work, the co-authors may be responsible for their personal contribution, leaving the collective responsibility for the overall result. Among co-authors, it is inadmissible to identify persons who did not participate in the research.
1.8. In case of detecting significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, the author must immediately notify the editorial office about it and make a joint decision on recognizing the error and / or correcting it as soon as possible. If the editorial board finds out from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author is obliged to immediately remove or correct them, or to provide the editors with a proof of correctness of the presented information.
1.9. Indicate in the manuscripts all sources of work funding, declare possible conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the research, their interpretation, and verdict of the reviewers.
1.10. When a manuscript has several authors, one of them, the corresponding author, should be designated to receive and respond the correspondence from the editors. This designation can be changed upon notification of the editors. It is the responsibility of the author to represent all those involved in the work.
1.11. By submitting the manuscript, the corresponding author certifies:
• The manuscript represents the original work of the listed authors.
• The submitted manuscript accurately reflects the scientific results.
• All of the authors made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.
• All those who made significant contributions were offered the opportunity to be listed as authors.
• All of the listed authors are aware of and agree with the submission of this manuscript.
• The manuscript has not been published, and is not now and will not be under consideration by another journal while it is considered here.
• The authors have provided information to the editors about relevant unpublished manuscripts, including whether any version of this manuscript was previously considered by an APS journal.
• The authors accept the established procedures for selecting manuscripts for publication.
2. Ethical principles in the activity of the reviewer
The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of copyright materials,therefore his actions should be impartial with observance of the following principles:
2.1. An expert evaluation should help the author improve the quality of the text of the article, and the editor-in-chief – decide on the publication.
2.2. The reviewer, who does not consider himself an expert in the field of the subject of the article, or knows that he cannot submit a review of the article in due time, must notify the editor-in-chief and withdraw from the review process.
2.3. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, as well as scientific supervisors of the degree applicants and / or the staff of the subdivision in which the author works.
2.4. Any manuscript received from the editorial office for review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with other persons, except for the persons indicated by the editor-in-chief.
2.5. The reviewer should be objective. Personal comments to the authorare inadmissible. The reviewer should express his opinion clearly and reasonably.
2.6. The reviewer, if possible, should identify published articles relevant to the article under review and not quoted by the author. Any statement in the review that some observation, conclusion or argument from the article under review has already been encountered in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference.The reviewer should also pay attention of the editor-in-chief to the significant similarity or partial coincidence of the article under review with any other previously published.
2.7. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas from the article submitted to him for review for personal gain, must respect the confidentiality of this information and ideas.
2.8. The reviewer should not accept the manuscripts for review if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, cooperation or other relations with any authors or organizations associated with the manuscript.
2.9. Anonymous peer review is critical to our publication process. Therefore, the identity of our reviewers is not released to authors or other referees throughout or after the review process. Please see http://ephys.kz -for more details on the release of review-process information.
2.10. Referees must treat all materials associated with the review process as confidential. This includes the manuscript itself, any related material provided by the authors, referee reports, and any other correspondence. Moreover, referees may not use any material provided to them as part of the peer review process for their own research. Although referees may consult and seek advice from other researchers or colleagues, the referee must ensure that the confidentiality of these materials is preserved. In such cases, we require referees to provide the names and contact information of those researchers who have been consulted.
3. Principles of professional ethics in the work of the editorial board
In its activity, the editorial staff and members of the editorial board of the journal are responsible for the publication of the author's works, which implies the following fundamental principles:
3.1. Taking the decision on publication, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data and the scientific significance of the considered manuscript.
3.2. The editor-in-chief should not have any conflict of interest with respect to manuscripts that he rejects or accepts.
3.3. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted for publication and which ones are rejected.At the same time, he follows the policy of the journal and respects legal restrictions, avoiding slander, copyright infringement and plagiarism.The editor-in-chief of the journal can consult the members of the editorial board and reviewers when making a decision.
3.4. The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscript only in terms of its scientific content regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status or political views of the authors of the manuscript.
3.5. The editor-in-chief, editorial staff, editorial team and members of the editorial board of the journal should not disclose any information on the manuscript submitted to the journal to anyone other than the author(s), designated and potential reviewers, other editorial staff and, if necessary, the publisher.
3.6. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the editor-in-chief, editorial staff, editorial team or members of the editorial board for personal purposes or transferred to third parties (without the written consent of the author).
3.7. The editor-in-chief should not allow the publication if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.
3.8. The manuscript, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyrights are reserved for authors.
3.9. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims regarding the manuscripts or published materials.In identifying a conflict situation, they must take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights, and, if errors are found, facilitate the publication of corrections or refutations.
3.10. The editor-in-chief, the editorial staff, the editorial team of the journal should ensure the confidentiality of names and other information related to reviewers.If this is necessary, when deciding whether to recruit a new reviewer, the latter may be informed of the names of the previous reviewers.
3.11. Usually the editors select one referee to review a manuscript. Referee reports are advisory to the editors, but are generally transmitted by the editors to the authors, and so should be written in a collegial manner. The editors may withhold or edit these reports for cause. If in the judgment of the editors a paper is clearly unsuitable for Eurasian journal of physics and functional materials, it will be rejected without external review; authors of such papers have the same right to appeal as do other authors.
3.12. Authors may request that a particular person or that people at a particular institution not be chosen as referees. We usually honor such requests although we try to give authors whose work is criticized in a manuscript an opportunity to respond to the criticism. Authors may suggest a list of experts whom they consider especially suited to referee their paper. Such a list is particularly welcome when a manuscript treats a highly specialized subject on which we rarely publish papers.
3.13. Any resubmittal should be accompanied by a summary of the changes made, and a brief response to all recommendations and criticisms. This material will normally be forwarded to reviewers, and so should be written in a collegial manner. Remarks that authors wish to address solely to the editors should be clearly identified and separated from the summary and response.
3.14. If the authors conclude, after having made efforts to respond to the criticisms of a referee, that they and the referee cannot agree, they may request that the paper be sent to a second referee. If the editors agree to this request, the second referee will be sent the previous correspondence on the manuscript, but not the identity of the first referee. Sometimes the editors decide to consult a second referee or a member of the Editorial Board even if the authors do not request it.
4. Date of receipt
4.1. The receipt date is the date a manuscript was first received by the editorial office. Manuscripts carry these throughout the review process, and on to publication. Usually, papers will retain the original receipt date. If authors make substantive changes to a manuscript, it may be given a revised date, which also will appear if the paper is published. In cases of major delays or changes, a resubmitted version is given a new receipt date.
5. Author inquiries
5.1. Authors can obtain information regarding the status of their manuscripts electronically at http:// http://ephys.kz/index.php?view=account&action=my_articles.
5.2. If clarification is needed, send an email message to email@example.com.
5.3. For papers that have been accepted for publication and sent to production, information about their status in the production process is available via a similar service maintained by the production vendor. A link to this service is provided on the manuscript status page.
5.4. The editors welcome suggestions from authors and referees regarding improvements in editorial and refereeing procedures.
6. Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the publisher
In his activities, the publisher is responsible for the publication of copyright works, which makes it necessary to observe the following basic principles and procedures:
6.1. To promote the observance of ethical duties by the editorial staff, the editorial and publishing group, the editorial board, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.
6.2. To support the editorial staff of the journal in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and to help them interact with other journals and / or publishers, if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of the editors.
6.3. To ensure the confidentiality of the information received from the authors of the manuscript prior to its publication.
6.4. To recognize that the activity of the journal is not a commercial project and does not have the goal of making profit.
6.5. To be always prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, refutations and apologies when necessary.
6.6. To provide editorial staff with the possibility of excluding publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.