Ethics of scientific publications

Ethics of scientific publications

 

Publication ethics

 

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications. The policy of the scientific journal "Industrial Transport of Kazakhstan" of the International Transport and Humanities University in the field of publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (The Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE).

 

1. Duties of the editors

 

1.1. Decision on publication. The editor-in-chief and the scientific editor of the scientific journal are independently and independently responsible for making a decision on publication, relying on cooperation with the editorial board, the international expert council and the editorial board of the journal. The scientific content of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policy of the editorial board of the journal, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

1.2. Impartiality. The editor-in-chief and the scientific editor should evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.

1.3. Confidentiality. The editor-in-chief, the scientific editor and the editorial board are not obliged to disclose information about the accepted manuscript unnecessarily to third parties, with the exception of authors, reviewers and other consultants.

1.4. Conflicts of interest and their Resolution policy

1.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to priority benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.

1.4.2. Editors should refuse to review manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies and other organizations associated with the manuscript.

1.5. Supervision of publications. The scientific editor, who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions contained in the publication are erroneous, should inform the editor-in-chief and the publisher about this in order to notify as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other appropriate actions.

1.6. Actions in case of ethical claims. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, take adequate retaliatory measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

 

2. Responsibilities of reviewers

 

2.1. Influence on the decisions of the editorial board. Reviewing helps the editor-in-chief to make an adequate decision about publication and, through appropriate interaction with the authors, can also help the author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is the core of the scientific approach. The editorial board shares the view that all scientists who want to publish their work are required to participate in the review of manuscripts.

2.2. Performance. Any selected reviewer who realizes the lack of his qualifications for reviewing the manuscript or does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the scientific editor and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.

2.3. Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with persons who do not have the authority to do so from the editor-in-chief.

2.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and in a reasoned manner.

2.5. Recognition of primary sources. Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the scientific editor to the significant similarities or coincidences found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of the reviewer's scientific competence.

2.6. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

2.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain.

2.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

 

3. Responsibilities of the authors

3.1. Requirements for manuscripts. The authors of the manuscript should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective judgment on the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately, without errors. The work should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.2 Data access and storage. The authors may be asked for raw data relevant to the manuscript for review and evaluation by editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if possible, and in any case keep this data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

3.3.1. Authors should make sure that a completely original work is presented and, in case of using the works or statements of other authors, provide appropriate bibliographic references or citations.

3.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms – from presenting someone else's work as an author's work to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work without attribution, as well as claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

3.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

3.4.1. In general, the author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

3.4.2. In general, the author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.

3.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, translated ones) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical if certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of interested journals may agree to re-publication, which necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work. A bibliographic reference to the first work should be provided in the second publication.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in the process of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources (for example, during the review or evaluation of manuscripts for grants) should not be used without the express written permission of the authors of the work related to confidential sources.

3.6. Authorship of the publication

3.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-authors. In cases where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of the research project, they should be indicated in the footnote as persons who have made significant contributions to this study.

3.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made significant contributions to the study are presented as co-authors, and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-authors, and also make sure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

3.7. Information Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of interest. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, receiving royalties, providing expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

3.8. Significant errors in published works. If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the scientific editor of the journal or the publisher and interact with them in order to withdraw the publication as soon as possible or correct errors. If the editor or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

 

4. Publisher's Responsibilities

4.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production has not influenced the editors' decisions.

4.2. The publisher should provide support to the editors of the journal in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of the editors.

4.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for reviewing articles and correcting errors.

PUBLICATION ETHICS