Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Publication Ethics: Instructions for authors
standards in the field of publications need to ensure high quality
scientific publications, to ensure the credibility of the research by
the society and the recognition of copyright works in the scientific
community. To avoid:
-fabricating and falsifying data (fabrication of
data means that the researcher without any work, invented data
falsification-substitution of data obtained during the experiment);
in scientific texts (under plagiarism means using someone else's ideas
and works, copy texts or their fragments without specifying source,
-simultaneous presentation in several magazines (consideration of manuscripts-work editors and reviewers);
of publication (posting the same or similar texts in manuscript several
periodicals harms the reputation of the academic and journals);
of copyrights of their sponsors-supervisor or colleagues (all who
contributed to the study should be identified, including students and
-incorrect list of authors (if the article
is written in co-authorship, then each author should be related to the
process of preparing the article, have scientific interests in this
In cases of violation of publication ethics, the article
may be recalled at any stage of the preparation and publication of the
article. If the violation is detected after publication, then retraction
of articles is carried out by decision of the editorial board
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal
“idil” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of
Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org
The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many
purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the
development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all
these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected
ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the
author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the
society for society-owned journal: "idil".
1.2. Publisher has a
supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication
process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best
practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes
its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely
seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we
recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all
our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
Publication decision – The Editor of a learned “idil” is solely and
independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted
to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with
the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The
validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and
readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided
by the policies of the “idil” journal’s editorial board and
constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force
regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may
confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate
manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race,
gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin,
citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “idil” must not
disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other
than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other
editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be
used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of
the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review
must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor,
associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to
review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have
conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or
other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies,
or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing
evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are
erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to
promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression
of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably
responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented
concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction
with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include
contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due
consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also
include further communications to the relevant institutions and research
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to
Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial
decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may
also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an
essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the
heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that
all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation
to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected
referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a
manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should
notify the editor of “idil” and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated
as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with
others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and
objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal
criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their
views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of
Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not
been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation,
derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be
accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the
editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the
manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which
they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be
used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of
the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer
review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts
of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other
relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or
institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate
account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its
significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the
paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit
others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate
statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate
and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly
identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may
be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for
editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to
such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and
Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to
retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original
works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others,
this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own
paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper
(without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by
others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing
behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing
essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary
publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal
concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than
one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are
met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the
secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and
interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be
cited in the secondary publication.
4.5. Acknowledgement of
Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be
given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in
determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained
privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third
parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written
permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of
confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant
applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission
of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant
contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of
the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions
should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have
participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project,
they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and
no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all
co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and
have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other
substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence
the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of
financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed
include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid
expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other
funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the
earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published
works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a
published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the
editor of “idil” journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or
correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third
party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the
obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher
Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors,
reviewers and authors of “idil” in performing their ethical duties
under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the
potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence
on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support “idil”
journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical
issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers
where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop
codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on
ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent
publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the
Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the
situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt
publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete
retraction of the affected work. The Publisher and the Journal do not
discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability,
marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic
predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its
publishing programs, services and activities.