Ethics of scientific publications
This section was prepared based on materials from Elsevier, a publishing house for scientific and medical literature, as well as materials from the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
2.5. Publication supervision
An editor who has provided convincing evidence that statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should inform the Publisher (and / or the relevant Scientific Society) in order to promptly notify the changes, withdraw the publication, raise concerns and other relevant statements.
2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research
The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), take appropriate action in the event of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures, in general terms, include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the corresponding complaint or request, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Influencing the decisions of the Editorial Board
Peer review assists the Editor in making a publication decision and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is an essential link in formal scientific communication, at the very heart of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to publication are required to do substantial work of reviewing the manuscript.
3.2. Diligence
Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work must notify the Editor of the journal “Actual Biotechnology” and ask him to exclude him from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with anyone not authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinions.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The Reviewer should also draw the Editor’s attention to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published work within the scope of the Reviewer’s scientific competence.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
3.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
4. Obligations of Authors
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1. Authors of original research reports should provide credible results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work must contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly wrong statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective, and the editorial point of view must be clearly indicated.
4.2. Data access and storage
Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1. Authors should ensure that the complete original work is presented and, in the case of use of works or statements of other Authors, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or extracts.
4.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else’s work as the author’s, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else’s work (without attribution), to claiming one’s own rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1. In general, an Author should not publish a manuscript largely devoted to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.
4.4.3. Publishing a particular type of article (eg, clinical practice guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases under certain conditions. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication, which necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work.
The bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. More information on acceptable forms of secondary (republishing) publication can be found at
4.5. Recognition of primary sources
The contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented. Data obtained privately, for example, in the course of conversation, correspondence or in the course of discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as evaluating manuscripts or granting grants, should not be used without the express written permission of Authors of work related to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of the publication
4.6.1 The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular direction in a research project, they should be listed as persons who have made a significant contribution to this research.
4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who made a significant contribution to the study are represented as Co-Authors and are not cited as Co-Authors of those who did not participate in the study, that all Co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are the objects of research
4.7.1. If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may cause any unusual risk, the Author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of research, Authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the research are in accordance with the laws and regulations of the research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript must clearly indicate that informed consent has been obtained from all subjects of research. You must always ensure that your privacy rights are respected.
4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, shareholding, royalties, expert opinions, patent application or patent registrations, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Substantial errors in published works
If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal “Actual Biotechnology” and interact with the Editor in order to promptly withdraw the publication or correct errors. If the Editor or Publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains material errors, the Author is obliged to remove the work or correct errors as soon as possible.
5. Obligations of the Publisher
5.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical obligations by Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal “Actual Biotechnology” in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be confident that potential revenue from advertising or reprints does not influence the Editors decisions.
5.2. The publisher should provide support to the Editors of the journal “Actual Biotechnology” in considering complaints about the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or Publishers, if this contributes to the performance of the Editors duties.
5.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retirement procedures, and error correction.
5.4. The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.