Karaganda Medical University
«Medicine and Ecology» journal
Monthly newspaper «Medic»
Home
Science
«Medicine and Ecology» journal
For our authors
ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

This part was prepared based on the materials of the Elsevier publishing house of scientific and medical literature, as well as materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. It is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers and Publishers of the journal «Medicine and Ecology».

1.2. The publisher is responsible for adhering to all current guidelines in the published work.

1.3. The publisher is committed to the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Therefore, the publisher understands the responsibility for the proper presentation of materials, especially in terms of ethical aspects of the publications set out in this document.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Decision to publish

The editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» is responsible for deciding on publication. The decision to publish should always be based on the reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance, as well as current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

2.2. Decency

The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor and the Editorial Board of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher, without necessity. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified.

2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2 The editor should recuse himself from reviewing manuscripts or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing the work instead of personally reviewing and deciding in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.

2.5. Publication supervision

An editor who has provided compelling evidence that statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should inform the Publisher about it for the purpose of prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expressions of concern and other relevant statements.

2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research

The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher, will take appropriate action in the event of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures, in general terms, include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the corresponding complaint or request, but can also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Influencing the decisions of the Editorial Board

Peer-review assists the Editor in making a publication decision and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. The publisher shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to publication are required to do substantial work of reviewing the manuscript.

3.2. Diligence

Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficient qualifications to review the manuscript or does not have the necessary time to complete the work within the agreed time frame must notify the Editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» about this and ask him to exclude him from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened and discussed with anyone not authorized by the Editor.

3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinions.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. The Reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published work within the scope of the Reviewer's scientific competence.

3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event 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.

4. Obligations of Authors

4.1. Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1. Authors of the original article should provide reliable results of the work done and an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. False or knowingly wrong statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective.

4.2. Data access and storage

Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM State menton Data and Data bases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors should ensure that the complete original work is presented and, in the case of use of works or statements of other Authors, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or extracts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

4.4.1. In general, an Author should not publish a manuscript largely 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.

4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.

4.4.3. Publishing a particular type of article (eg, clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, provided certain conditions are met. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work.

A bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. For more information on acceptable forms of secondary (republishing) publications, see http://www.icmje.org

4.5. Recognition of primary sources

The contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented.

4.6. Authorship of the publication

4.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors

4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the research are represented as Co-Authors and are not cited as Co-Authors of those who did not participate in the research, that all Co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are the objects of research (For medical publications only)

4.7.1. If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may cause any unusual risk, the Author must clearly state this in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of research, Authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the research are in accordance with the laws and regulations of the research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly indicate that voluntary informed consent has been obtained from all people who have become the objects of research.

4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, shareholding, royalties, expert opinions, patent application or patent registrations, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Substantial errors in published works

If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» and interact with the Editor in order to promptly withdraw the publication or correct errors. The author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct errors as soon as possible.

5. Obligations of the Publisher

5.1 The publisher must follow principles and procedures to promote ethical responsibilities by Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal.

5.2. The publisher should support the Editors of Medicine and Ecology in reviewing ethical claims in published materials and help interact with other journals and / or Publishers if this facilitates the performance of Editors' duties.

5.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retirement procedures and error correction.

5.4 The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.