Satisfying the criteria for a scientific writing
Manuscripts should objectively present the research work on the topic, indicating and arguing its significance and relevance. They shall provide correct estimation of the contribution of previous researchers pertaining to the topic. Manuscripts should be scientifically grounded using appropriate evidence and fully formatted in agreement with the journal’s style guide.
Originality and plagiarism
Submissions are original works not duplicating any other previously published works or parts of these without precise and correct citing or quoting, which is inadmissible and shall be treated as plagiarism.
Multiple or concurrent submissions
It is unethical and inadmissible to submit articles that are under consideration or peer review, or accepted for publication or published elsewhere.
Conflicts of interest
Authors are entitled to warn against any conflicts of interest that may affect reviewing, editing or publication of the submissions.
The editorial staff shall not disclose information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding reviewers, publisher or the author(s).
Objectivity and equality
The Editorial Board should base their decisions solely on the submission’s scientific merits.
Decision on publishing
The Editorial Board decides on publishing as proposed by its members and the editor-in-chief. Compilers, executive editors and the editor-in-chief take into account the opinions of the reviewers adhering to the editorial policy of the journal against any copyright infringement, all forms of plagiarism or fraud.
Conflicts of interest, breaches of ethical behaviour and objections
The Editorial Board shell immediately take measures in all instances of received reports of unethical conduct, involving plagiarism, incorrect citation, manipulation of data and/or results. Consequently, things may come to rejecting the submission or if the manuscript has been published, to publishing the established breaches of ethical behaviour.
Authors are entitled to request reconsideration, but only if providing the editor-in-chief with convincing evidence of reviewer(s)’ inaccuracies. In such cases, it is possible to have a new expert review, which shall be final.
Rejected manuscripts may be submitted for publishing elsewhere.
The members of the Editorial Board should not use any ideas or information before the manuscript is published without the author(s)’ explicit consent.
Reviewers commit to keeping all information confidential and shall not disclose to third parties information regarding a submitted manuscript.
Reviews should be unbiased and conducted on the basis of the objective givens of the manuscript. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments such as competent comments and conclusions. The reviews form the basis of the Editorial Board’s decision on whether to publish the manuscript; by providing their comments reviewers help the Editorial Board to improve the quality of manuscripts.
When impossible to finish a review within a specified time, reviewers should notify the editor-in-chief immediately that he/she declines to review a paper. When a reviewer fails to meet the deadline, the Editorial Board decides on finding a substitute reviewer.
Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from professional, personal, financial or other relationships or connections with the author(s). Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used without the author(s)’ explicit consent.