online ISSN:2312-3389 print ISSN:2312-3370 DOI:10.15407/agrisp

Ethics

Ethics of scientific publications


In its activity related to the compliance with the international ethics rules, the Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Agricultural Science and Practice” follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the norms, declared by the Elsevier Publishing House (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit).

The compliance with the abovementioned requirements is the guarantee of ensuring the rights and responsibilities of the authors, reviewers, and the publisher.


1. The rights and responsibilities of the authors


The author guarantees and realizes his/her responsibility regarding the following aspects:

  • the presented text of the manuscript reflects reliable results of his/her personal and original studies;

  • the results have not been fabricated or borrowed;

  • cited works of other authors have been used properly in the form of references;

  • if the information has been obtained privately, the mandatory permission has been received from the owner;

  • there are no excessive borrowings, unexecuted citations, re-phrasing, appropriation of other scientists’ rights for the study results in the manuscript;

  • all the participants of the study are indicated in the manuscript as the co-authors or have been duly thanked;

  • all the co-authors have read the manuscript, given their consent to its publication and take responsibility for the content of the article;

  • the manuscript has been sent to the editorial office for the first time, it has not been reviewed or published in any other periodicals.

If the manuscript is the continuation of a series of works, there should be a reference to the earlier publication with the substantiation for the difference of this new work. Verbatim copying and rephrasing of one’s own work is unacceptable.

If the manuscript is a review of the scientific literature (a compilation of materials), the author should base himself/herself on his/her own studies and his/her personal judgement.

In case of any possible conflict of interests, which could affect the interpretation of results and the judgement of reviewers, the author should make a statement about it.

If in the process of reviewing the article, there are any additional questions, indirectly related to the text of the article, the author should provide all the additional information to the reviewer and the publisher on their request.

The author should specify all the sources of his work financing.


2. The reviewer’s ethics


The main issues in the reviewer’s activity are his/her impartiality, professionalism, and confidentiality.

A review is the main instrument of determining the quality of the manuscript and improving the author’s text; it is also the main argument related to the publication for the editorial office.

A reviewer never discusses his/her attitude to the author, he/she reviews only the text of the manuscript. He/she presents his/her own opinion clearly, in an objective and motivated manner, and submits it to the author and the editorial office.

If a reviewer has any doubts about his/her professionalism in this sphere of science or he/she has any conflict of interests with the author or the organization, presenting the manuscript for the review, or he/she just doesn’t have enough time to review this work, he/she should notify the publisher about it and withdraw from reviewing.

If a reviewer is confident in the fact that a part of the text, figures, etc. have already been published, i.e. there is plagiarism or verbatim copying of previous author’s works, he/she should provide the confirmation for his/her conclusions in the form of references.

The manuscript, received by the reviewer, is confidential information, which cannot be used for any personal purposes. The ideas and positions of the manuscript should not be discussed with any third parties.

A reviewer can be neither a co-author of the article under review nor a scientific adviser of any applicants for completing a scientific degree (who are the co-authors) and/or employees of the author’s department.


3. Ethics of the chief editor, editorial board and editorial office


The activity of the chief editor, members of the editorial board and employees of the editorial office is governed by the compliance with the ethical norms in the relations of the author and the reviewer.

Neither the chief editor nor the editorial board should have any conflict of interests regarding the articles, which are accepted or rejected by them, they should also avoid getting any specialists, who are most likely to be involved in any collisions, into any external reviewing.

The chief editor and the editorial board estimate the manuscript by its scientific content solely regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status or political views of the authors.

The decision on the publication is taken based on scientific reviews and opinions of the editorial board members.

The information about the presented manuscript may be provided only to the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the editorial board, and the publisher.

If the author finds a gross mistake or discrepancy in his/her article, which has already been published, it is his/her duty to immediately notify the chief editor of the journal about it and to cooperate with the latter in order to provide the official refutation or correction of the article in the following issue. If the chief editor finds out about a considerable discrepancy in the article, which has already been published, from the third party and notifies the author about it, it is the duty of the latter to provide immediate refutation or correction of the article or to provide the chief editor with the evidence of the accuracy of the published material.