Ethical standards for reviewing scientific publications
1. All articles and materials published in the journal, except for editorial materials, are subject to mandatory peer review, organized according to the principles of open, blind or double-blind peer review.
2. Reviewing is defined as receiving consultation/advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in this field. Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the Author and can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work.
3. The reviewer must conduct an expert assessment of the article in accordance with the “Organization and procedure of reviewing” and in the interests of the scientific community and society as a whole.
4. Considering the review as the most important link in ensuring the exchange of scientific information, the Editorial Board puts forward requirements for the reviewers to comply with ethical standards:
‒ competence (presence of sufficient knowledge of the subject of research);
‒ confidentiality of the review – not to disclose information or ideas obtained during the review; not to allow their use for personal gain; not to expose any details of the manuscript and the review of the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the editor;
‒ objectivity – comprehensively evaluate the manuscript, avoiding personal criticism of the author; immediately declare a possible conflict of interests between the reviewer and the reviewed work, its authors or the organization that finances this research;
‒ constructive criticism (preparation of reviews that can help authors improve their manuscript);
‒ impartiality and honesty ‒ to evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscript, regardless of the origin, citizenship or views of its author;
‒ clarity and reasonableness of expressing one’s opinion; compliance with the principle of recognition of primary sources – indicate publications on the topic of the submitted manuscript that are not referenced in the reviewed article;
‒ to draw the editor’s attention to any significant similarity or coincidence of the manuscript under consideration and any other publication known to him;
‒ efficiency (compliance with the deadlines for the expert assessment and the design of the review).
5. Reviewers should:
‒ promptly respond to the offer to write a review, especially in case of refusal;
‒ agree to review the manuscript only if they are sure that they would be able to prepare a review within the proposed or jointly agreed time period, notifying the journal in a timely manner if they need an extension of the deadline;
‒ inform the journal if there are circumstances that prevent them from preparing a review in a timely manner, providing an accurate estimate of the time they would need if the journal does not appoint another reviewer instead of them;
‒ in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the subject of research, directly declare this;
‒ notify the Editorial Board of the journal as soon as possible if they find that they do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, without waiting for the date of submission of the review, as this would improperly delay the review process;
‒ declare all possible conflicts of interest (related, for example, to personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious interests);
‒ refuse to prepare a review if they feel that they will not be able to make an impartial and fair assessment;
‒ when agreeing to review, reviewers should prepare objective and constructive reviews that can help authors improve their manuscript;
‒ be specific in their criticism and confirm their general conclusions with strong evidence and relevant references;
‒ refrain from humiliating personal comments or baseless accusations;
‒ if the reviewer guesses who the author of the reviewed article may be by subject matter or other signs, the reviewer may contact the author directly only with the prior permission of the Editorial Board and/or the Council;
‒ promptly notify the journal if they found errors in the work, if the reviewers are concerned about the ethics of the work, learned about a substantial similarity between the manuscript and other documents, or suspect that during the study, or sending the manuscript to the journal took place unfair behavior; at the same time, reviewers should keep their concerns confidential and not to investigate further the circumstances of the case, if the journal does not appeal to them for help;
‒ not to attract anyone to conduct a review, including his assistants, without the prior consent of the journal.