Ethical Guidelines on Publication
The Editorial Board of the bulletin of Veterinary biotechnology being published by the Institute of Veterinary Medicine of the NAAS and the State Scientific Research Institute of Laboratory Diagnostics and Veterinary and Sanitary Expertise maintains a high level of acceptance requirements and selection criteria for scientific papers.
The Editorial Board is focused on maintaining high standards of ethical conduct for publication in its journal and guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Ethical code of scientists of Ukraine and the best practice of Ukrainian and foreign professional societies, research organizations and editorial boards. The purpose of peer review is to ensure the maintaining high ethical standards of scientific researches, which should be understood by the reviewer as ethics requirements to scientific publications before starting the work.
We think that coordination of ethical conduct standards is necessary for all participants of the publishing process: authors, editors, reviewers, publishers and readers.
1. Reviewer ethical obligations
The review process of obtained scientific papers improves the quality of published materials, prevents prejudice and injustice if scientific papers are rejected or accepted. The main ethical standards that should manage the subjects of the review process include the following:
- The content of the scientific paper is confidential. The reviewer is prohibited to disclose information of the scientific paper or discuss unpublished findings and recommendations of the author with other colleagues (except of the cases when the reviewer needs specific consultation, for which the permission should be given by the Editorial Board);
- The reviewer is prohibited to use the obtained author’s arguments and conclusions without his/her permission to ensure the rights of author’s intellectual property;
- The reviewer should assess the quality of the scientific paper and determine the level of compliance with the scientific, literary and ethical standards objectively;
- If there is a conflict of interests between the results of the research and the personal developments of the reviewer or if there is a professional or personal relationship between the reviewer and the author, which may affect the reviewer’s judgment, he/she should return the article indicating the conflict of interests;
- If the reviewer is not sure that his/her qualification corresponds to the level and direction of the research presented in the article, he/she should refuse reviewing;
- If there is a suspicion of plagiarism, the reviewer should give adequate and reasoned justifications for his/her own comments. All comments about the presence of plagiarism or one-sided citation should be accompanied by the appropriate reference;
- If the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, he/she should apply to the Editorial Board with the requirement of collective review of the author’s article;
- Since the reviewer should indicate all cases of insufficient citation of other scientists working in the field of the article under review by the authors of the articles, comments regarding the insufficient citation of the reviewer’s own research are identified as one-sided;
- Working at the scientific publication the reviewer should have a high self-discipline including timely provision of the review for the article and respectful attitude to the authors of the article.
2. Ethical obligations of the Editorial Board
- The Editorial Board of the bulletin of Veterinary biotechnology is responsible for deciding which articles should be published in the bulletin. Received scientific papers should be checked for the relevance of the theme and their value for researchers and readers. The chief editor can be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the bulletin, and his decision should be based on the provisions of the law prohibiting copyright infringement and plagiarism. The chief editor can consult other members of the Editorial Board to make a decision.
- The chief editor and all members of the Editorial Board don’t have any right to disclose information about received scientific papers to anybody other than the author, reviewer, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher.
- Unpublished materials given in the received scientific papers should not be used by representatives of the Editorial Board in the own researches without the written consent of the author. Non-public information or ideas received during the review should remain confidential and not used for personal purposes.
- Representatives of the Editorial Board should declare the conflict of interests as a result of competitive relations, cooperation or other relations related to the received scientific papers and refuse to review the papers.
- In case of ethical complaint regarding the received scientific paper or published article, the chief editor and Editorial Board should take objective and appropriate measures. Such measures usually include the contact with the author of the scientific paper and due consideration of the given complaint or claim, application to relevant institutions and research organizations can also be necessary. If the complaint is supported, it is necessary to publish appropriate corrections, simplifications or apologies. All information on the fact of unethical conduct should be considered even if it came after years after publication.
3. Ethical obligations of authors
- Authors should provide scientific paper material formed clearly and unambiguously reporting its relevance using the results of original researches. The article should contain enough information and references to original sources. Misleading or obscure statements are equated with unethical conduct and are unacceptable. The summary of articles and special publications should also be clear and objective.
- If the author uses the statements of other people in his/her work, they should be properly prepared in the form of citations. Plagiarism in all its forms is considered as unethical conduct and unacceptable.
- Experimental or theoretical research can be the basis for criticizing the works of other researchers and in appropriate cases articles can contain such criticism. But the criticism of persons, not theses or conclusions provided by these persons, should be avoided, because the personal criticism cannot be considered as a sign of scientific publication.
- The author should not publish the article, which contains the description of the experiment reflected in the previous publication or publish it in more than one bulletin. Provision of the same article to more than one bulletin at the same time is considered as unethical conduct and is unacceptable.
- The author presenting the article for publication is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes all persons, which meet the criterion of authorship. If the article is written by several authors, the author who provides the contact details, documents and corresponds with the Editorial Board takes responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article for its publication in the bulletin.
- The author should inform the Editorial Board about all potential conflicts of interests and ensure that there are not contractual relationships or mercantile reasons, which can affect the publication of the information contained in the provided scientific paper.
- If the author finds the error or inaccuracy in his/her published article, he/she should immediately inform the editor or publisher of the bulletin and help them to remove or correct the error. If the editor or publisher learns from the third party that the published article contains errors, the author should immediately remove or correct them or provide evidences to show the correctness of the original article.
- Prevention of pseudo-scientific publications is the responsibility of all authors, chief editor, reviewer, publisher and organization.
- The author can wish to exclude some reviewers from reviewing the article. However, the chief editor can decide to recruit one or more of these reviewers if he/she is sure that their points of view are important for the impartial review of the article.