Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

“Biology. Human. Technology” adheres to the Publication Ethics and Publication Abuse Guidelines, based on the COPE Guidelines for Best Practices for Journal Editors, to ensure the ethics and quality of publications.

T.H. Shevchenko National University “Chernihiv Colehium” (NUCHK) as the publisher of “Biota. Human. Technology” undertakes to guarantee a serious approach to all stages of publication and accepts responsibility.

Information from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) reference was taken as the basis for the stated Publication Ethics and the Statement of Unfair Work. (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf, the main provisions of which are listed below.

1. General duties and responsibilities of editors

Editors must be responsible for everything that is published in the journal “Biota. Human. Technology”. Journal editors should: strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve the journal; have processes in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish; to defend freedom of speech; maintain the integrity of the academic record; prevent compromises of business needs with intellectual and ethical standards; always be prepared to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

2. Relations with readers

To inform readers about who funded the research or other scientific work, whether the sponsors took any role in the research and its publication, at the end of each article, after the list of literary sources, write Funding and indicate the source of funding. If there is no external funding, then it is necessary to indicate: This research received no external funding / Це дослідження не отримало зовнішнього фінансування.

Editors must ensure that all published research reports and reviews are peer-reviewed by appropriately qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate). The non-peer-reviewed journal sections are Scientific Events and Instructions for authors.

3. Relations with authors

The editors’ decision to accept or reject an article for publication should be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the article, as well as on the soundness of the research and its relevance to the journal's field of activity. The journal must provide access to the Guidelines for Authors, which are regularly reviewed and updated. Editors should not reverse the decision to accept a submission unless serious problems with the submission are identified. Likewise, new editors should not overturn publication decisions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified. Review processes should be published in the Review Process journal website; editors should be prepared to justify any significant deviations from the described processes. Authors should note the presence of a Conflicts of Interest. If there is no conflict of interest, it should be noted: The authors declare no conflict of interest / Автори заявляють про відсутність конфлікту інтересів.

Articles must include the dates of submission and acceptance of articles. Editors must follow good practice in applying the authorship or co-authorship system by reflecting the contributions of each of them to the published article and must discourage misconduct (such as ghosting and guest authors). Authors are expected to meet the publication criteria McNutt M.K., Bradford M., Drazen J.M., Hanson B., Howard B., Jamieson K.H., Kiermer V., Marcus E., Pope B.K., Schekman R., Swaminathan S., Stang P.J., Verma I.M. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2018 Mar 13; 115(11):2557-2560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1715374115)

The decisions of the reviewers are the sole means of publication in the journal and are final.

Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.

4. Relations with the editorial office

Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on all that is expected of them, including the need to treat submissions with confidentiality. Appropriate guidelines for reviewers should be regularly updated and made available on the journal’s website (the Review Process). Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. The editors expect reviewers to comment on ethical issues and possible research and publication misconduct caused by submissions (for example, unethical study design, insufficient information on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate manipulation of data and presentation), originality of submitted materials, checking for excessive publication and plagiarism. Reviewer comments should be sent to the authors in full, provided they do not contain offensive or defamatory remarks. For reviewing an article, the editors must send to the reviewer a letter of thanks, signed by the Editor-in-Chief, in which the reviewer’s contribution to the journal is noted. This acknowledgment is recognized by academic institutions in the process of rating scientific achievements of employees (in particular, for awarding points to reviewers-employees of these institutions), which should encourage academic institutions to recognize peer review as part of the scientific process. The editors must constantly monitor the work of the reviewers and take measures to ensure a high standard. A database of relevant reviewers should be developed and maintained by the Editorial Board, which should be updated based on reviewer performance. The editors should stop using reviewers who constantly give impolite, low-quality or late reviews. The editorial board should ensure that the reviewer database reflects the journal’s community and should add new reviewers as needed. For this, the editors should use personal contacts of members of the editorial board, as well as authors’ proposals and bibliographic databases. Editors should follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

The editors must guarantee the protection of the identity of reviewers and authors according to the double-blind review policy used by the journal.

5. Relations with members of the editorial board

Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidance on what is expected of them and should keep existing members informed of new policies and developments. Articles submitted by members of the editorial board are subjected to an impartial review with the determination of the appropriate qualifications of the reviewers. The policy towards the members of the editorial board is aimed at involving them in the development and proper management of the journal.

The composition of the editorial board should be reviewed regularly. The Editor-in-Chief and all members of the editorial board must satisfy one of the criteria specified in the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0141-21#Text):

• the presence of at least three publications in the last five years, indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus databases, and published in at least two different editions;
• the presence of a monograph (or two chapters in collective monographs) published in the last 10 years by the publishing house(s), the list of which is approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Culture, taking into account the recommendations of the Scientific Committee of the National Council of Ukraine on Science and Technology Development;
• the presence of at least two monographs and/or four chapters in collective monographs published in the last five years by publishing houses that are not included in the list of publishing houses approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. Such monographs must be recommended for publication by the academic board of a higher education institution or scientific institution and undergo a high-quality independent review by at least three reviewers, whose names must be indicated in the initial data of the monograph;
• the presence of at least six publications over the past three years in at least three different editions, included in category “B” of the List of Scientific and Professional Publications of Ukraine (https://mon.gov.ua/ua/nauka/nauka/atestaciya-kadriv-vishoyi-kvalifikaciyi/naukovi-fahovi-vidannya).

Members of the editorial board should be given clear instructions regarding their expected roles and responsibilities, namely:

• activities as representatives of the journal
• support and promotion of the journal
• finding the best authors and best papers (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
• review of manuscripts submitted to the journal
• accepting commissions to write editorial articles, reviews and comments on articles in one’s specialized field
• attendance and participation in meetings of the editorial board

Once a year, there is a consultation meeting of the members of the editorial board with the aim of evaluating their opinion on the work of the journal, informing about any changes in the journal’s policy and determining the strategy for the future development of the journal.

6. Relations with journal owners and publishers

The relationship between editors, publishers and owners should be based on the principle of editorial independence. Editors make decisions about which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher. Editors have a written contract that defines their relationship with the journal owner (publisher). The terms of this contract are in accordance with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

The resolution of disagreements and disputed issues between the editors and the owner (publisher) of the journal is carried out in accordance with the current legislation.

Editors should communicate regularly with the journal owner and publisher.

7. Editorial processes and reviews

Editors should strive to ensure that their journal’s peer review is fair, impartial and timely. Editors must ensure the confidentiality of all author and reviewer submissions submitted to their journal. Editors should ensure that people involved in the editorial process (including themselves) receive appropriate training and are up-to-date with the latest guidance, recommendations and evidence on peer review and journal management. Editors should periodically review peer review practices to see if improvements are possible.

Editors must take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and journal sections will have different goals and standards. Editors should use plagiarism detection systems for routine use or when suspicions arise. Decisions about journal style should be based on relevant evidence of factors that enhance reporting quality (in particular, the adoption of structured abstracts) and not simply on aesthetic considerations or personal preferences.

8. Protection of individual data

Editors must comply with the privacy laws in their jurisdiction. However, regardless of local laws, they must always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained during research or professional interactions (for example, between doctors and patients). Therefore, it is always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who can identify themselves or be identified by others (for example, from case descriptions or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without express consent if considerations of public interest outweigh possible harm, consent is impossible to obtain, and a reasonable person is unlikely to object to publication. At the same time, consent to participate in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to the publication of personal data, images or quotes.

9. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

Editors should endeavor to ensure that the research they publish is conducted in accordance with relevant internationally accepted guidelines (for example, the Declaration of Helsinki for Clinical Research, AERA and BERA Guidelines for Educational Research). Editors should obtain assurances that all studies have been approved by an appropriate body (for example, research ethics committee, institutional review board), if one exists. If necessary, the editors should contact an independent ethics consultant.

10. Dealing with possible misconduct

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or are accused of misconduct. This obligation applies to both published and unpublished documents. Editors should not simply reject articles that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically bound to prosecute alleged cases. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where possible. The editors must first receive a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some relevant authority (perhaps a regulator or a national research integrity organization) to investigate. Editors must use reasonable efforts to ensure that an appropriate investigation of alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, the editors must make every reasonable attempt to persistently reach a resolution.

11. Ensuring the integrity of the academic certificate

Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and appropriately. Editors must follow COPE’s retraction guidelines. A journal should have a system that allows authors to make original research articles freely available.

12. Intellectual property

Editors should be aware of intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to resolve potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions. Editors should implement systems to detect plagiarism (for example, software, similar title search) in submitted materials both routinely and when suspected. Editors must support authors whose copyrights have been infringed or who are victims of plagiarism. Editors should be prepared to work with their publisher to protect authors’ rights and prosecute infringers (for example, by requesting retraction or removal of material from websites), regardless of whether their journal owns the copyright.

13. Encouraging debate

Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticism of papers published in their journal. Authors of criticized materials should be given the opportunity to respond. The editorial should not exclude studies reporting negative results. The editors should be open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal.

14. Complaints

Editors must promptly respond to complaints. A journal must rely on the COPE-described process for handling complaints against a journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher (https://publicationethics.org/appeals).

15. Commercial considerations

A journal should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not influence editorial decisions (for example, advertising departments should operate independently of editorial departments). Editors should announce advertising policies regarding journal content and the publication process for sponsored supplements. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal, unless corrections are required, in which case this should be clearly stated. The journal publishes articles in open access, without fees for submission, review, publication, access to published materials. There is no additional charge for exceeding the page limit. No financial charges apply.

16. Conflicts of interest

All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other material conflict of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. It is necessary to disclose all sources of financial support for the project.

17. Disclaimer

The editors and the editorial board are not responsible for the opinions expressed by the authors, views and content of the manuscripts published in the journal. Individual authors bear sole responsibility for originality, manuscript proofreading, and errors.

All manuscripts submitted for review and publication in “Biota. Human. Technology” undergo a double-blind review for authenticity, ethical concerns, and useful contribution. The decisions of the reviewers are the sole means of publication in the journal and are final.