Scholarly Notes of KNASTU

Official web-site

Home > Publication ethics and malpractice statement

Publication ethics and malpractice statement









1. Issues concerning publication and authorship:

- it is obligatory that each and every article submitted to the editors for publication should contain a list of references along with information on financial support, if any, provided for the research and for the resulting paper;

- all papers submitted to the editors are necessarily checked for improper borrowings and plagiarism; in case the checkup proves any of the these the paper is rejected; if unreliable or falsified scientific data are found in an article it is also rejected;

- all papers have to be original and submitted for publication for the first time ever; we never accept papers already published elsewhere except for reprinting materials which have enduring scientific value but which were published long ago in periodicals that have already become bibliographic rarities.


2. Authors’ rights and responsibilities

- each and every author has a right to partake in the process of peer-reviewing and – within a calendar month of the date of submission – to inquire about the editor’s decision: whether his/her article is accepted, rejected or considered as needing further modification and improvement;

- if an author does not accept the editor’s decision, he/she has a right to obtain a copy of the peer-review (but not the name of the reviewer) and submit a reasonable appellation against such decision; each appellation is then passed on to and considered by the Editorial Board with participation of an expert who has not dealt with the article before; this new expert is commissioned a new peer-review of the paper not knowing the text of the previous one;

- all authors to a paper should always make a substantial contribution to the research; no ‘nominal’ authorship is allowed, i.e. when someone is included in the list of the paper’s authors without actually having taken any part in the research or writing of the article;

- authors should ensure: a) that all data used in the paper have been obtained as the result of an objective scientific investigation, b) academic novelty of the study, c) its methodological substantiation and d) trueness-to-fact. 


3. Peer-reviewing, responsibilities of reviewers

- a peer-reviewer’s inferences and opinions have to be well-grounded; no value judgments are allowed without reliance upon facts or logic; an expert has to opine professionally and with tolerance on any scientifically proven conclusions of an author even if the entire latter’s study or any of its parts and sections may seem to be in disagreement with the reviewer’s ethical principles;

- a reviewer must not have any conflict of interests in respect of the paper under review, its author/s and/or its sponsors;

- a reviewer must specify any published materials pertaining to the subject-matter of the paper under review that have not been cited in it;

- the reviewer’s name and the whole process of peer-reviewing have to remain confidential.


4. Editors’ responsibilities

- the editors have the sole and exclusive authority to accept/reject articles for publication, for which they bear full responsibility; such decisions are taken at an Editorial Board meeting after consideration and public discussion of the statements of two expert-reviewers one of them being the head the journal’s appropriate thematic department/section/series; if any author submits an appellation against the decisions, then one more expert-review of the article under consideration has to be prepared and discussed at the meeting;

- the journal’s editors must have no conflict of interests in respect of the papers and other materials they consider for publication;

- the editors may only accept papers for publication when reasonably certain, i.e. if such papers have academic merit and demonstrate a clear and explicit statement of their subject-matter, along with good literary style;

- if any mistakes or fallacies are revealed, the editors should be always willing to publish corrections or retractions;

- the editors must ensure that the names of all and any peer-reviewers remain strictly confidential and are not disclosed to authors under any conceivable circumstances;

- the editors bear full responsibility for everything that comes out on the pages of their journal; they must: strive to meet the needs of both the readers and the authors, constantly improve their journal, ensure the highest possible quality of published materials, commit to and safeguard the principles of the freedom of expression and speech, adhere to the rules and norms of publishing ethics.


5. Publishing ethics

-  no discrimination of authors on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin shall be tolerated;

- each member of the Editorial Board and each expert-reviewer have an obligation to reveal all and any cases of misconduct or unethical behaviour they come across or find out about and bring them to attention of the editor and publisher; whoever informs the editor or publisher of unethical behaviour should provide sufficient evidence and facts for an investigation to be initiated;

- if cases of misconduct have been revealed and convincingly proven, the editor or publisher shall have a right to place a formal embargo on the author’s further publications in the journal or on a peer-reviewer/member of the Editorial Board’s further involvement in reviewing and expert evaluations; also the employers of these persons have to be informed of the event along with professional associations and/or groups to which they are members;

- cogent criticism of published materials are welcome in the journal, except when the editors have strong reasons why they can’t publish it; the authors of the papers under criticism should be always given a chance to respond.

Last Updated on Thursday, 01 July 2021 16:57