Publishing guidelines  Українською

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

1. Publication and authorship:

• list of references and financial support should be noted;
• no plagiarism, no fraudulent data;
• multiple publications of the same research in one journal is forbidden.

2. Author’s responsibilities:

• Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process;
• All authors must significantly contributed to the research;
• Statement that all data in article are real and authentic must be included;
• Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• Authors should read and understand the Instructions to Authors;
• Authorship statement explaining who did what should be provided;
• Funding information should be noted;
• Competing interest should be declared;
• Permission should be obtained for the use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Web);
• Documentation should be provided for any citations to unpublished work (e.g. articles in press/personal communications);
• Information about previous submissions to other journals (e.g. name of journal, reviewer comments) must be noted;
• Confirmation that the manuscript has been submitted solely to your journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere, should be presented in the Letter to the Editor.

3. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers:

• reviewers’ judgments should be objective;
• reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders;
• reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited;
• reviewed articles will be treated confidentially.

Relationship with Reviewers:

• reviews should be conducted objectively;
• personal criticism of the author is inappropriate;
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libellous;
• Reviewers should declare any competing interests;
• Reviewers should decline to review 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;
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work;
• if a Reviewer wants to pass a review request onto a colleague, they should get the editor’s permission beforehand.
• anonymity of reviewers will be preserved.

The reviewers are asked to consider the following ethical aspects:

• Was the article published by the author before?
• Does the article contain fragments of plagiarism of already published works?
• Was the article written in accordance to ethical standards and existing rules?
• Are there any suspicions or proof that the data presented in the article is fictitious or falsified?
• Are results of the research presented accurately and fully?

Any other information that may result in the rejection of manuscript should be submitted to the editor.

4. Editorial responsibilities:

The editors of the Experimental and Clinical Physiology and Biochemistry Journal should confirm and ensure that all manuscripts are assessed appropriately taking into account scientific and intellectual content of the article, considering ethical principles, regardless of author’s gender, race, nationality, religion or political preferences. Editorial is responsible for publishing or rejecting submitted manuscripts based on the analyses of the manuscript by the reviewers, as well as the Journal policy, avoiding plagiarism, defamation or copyright infringement.

• meet the needs of readers and authors;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed;
• inform the readers about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards;
• acceptance or rejection of a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal;
• describe a peer review processes and justify any important deviation from the described processes;
• guarantee a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions;
• publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance is regularly updated;
• do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission;
• new Editors do not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified;
• publish guidance to Reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance is regularly updated and should refer or link to this code;
• have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected – unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers;
• ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
• respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further;
• publish cogent criticisms of work already published, unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be;
• authors of criticised material are given the opportunity to respond;
• control that reporting negative results are not excluded.

5. Publishing ethics issues

• monitoring/safeguarding publishing ethics will be carried out by the editorial board;
• guidelines for retracting articles are noted below;
• the integrity of the academic record should be maintained;
• compromising intellectual and ethical standards should be precluded from business needs;
• publication of corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies will be performed when needed.
• plagiarism and fraudulent data are forbidden.

 Institutions where the paper authors work should:

• inform journals about cases of proven misconduct that affect the reliability or attribution of work that they have published;
• respond to journals if they request information about issues, such as disputed authorship, misleading reporting, competing interests, or other factors, including honest errors, that could affect the reliability of published work;
• initiate inquiries into allegations of research misconduct or unacceptable publication practice raised by the journal;
• have policies supporting responsible research conduct and systems in place for investigating suspected research misconduct.

Detailed information about Ethical Guidelines in Experiments are located here http://ecpb.org.ua/en/ethical-guidelines/

6.  Publication retracting:

Journal Editors will consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
• it constitutes plagiarism;
• it reports unethical research.
• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors;
• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case;
• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive;
• an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time;
• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error);
• the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).