Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference
Print ISSN: 2313-1020    Online ISSN: 2542-1093
English | Русский

Recent issue
Vol. 5, No 3-4 March 2018

Declaration of Ethics

    Publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal "Actual Problems in Machine Building" is a continuous improvement of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the authors work quality. It is important to coordinate the standards of expected ethical conduct of all parties, involved in the publishing process: author, editor, reviewer and publisher.


 Authors’ duties

   Reporting standards
   Authors must submit reliable results of the original study, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying research data should be clearly stated in the article. Article should be sufficiently detailed and contain the necessary links for the recurrence other work done. Knowingly false or erroneous statements are unacceptable and have unethical behavior.

   Data access and storage
   Authors may be asked to provide the raw data associated with the article for the editorial review, and authors should be prepared to keep specific data within a reasonable period after their publication.

   Originality and plagiarism
   Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and, if the authors have used the work/s of others, that they are properly cited or decorated the references. Plagiarism takes many forms, from " shoving" another's article as the article of its own to copying or paraphrasing significant portions of other articles of the another author (without attribution), to claim to the results of research work conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable behavior of publication.

   Multiple , overlapping and simultaneous publication
   Typically, the author does not have to publish operation, which basically describes the same study in more than one primary or journal publication. Article submission simultaneously in more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable behavior. Typically, the author should not submit for consideration in another journal article that has already been published.

   Sources confirmation
   Work of other authors should always be properly recognized. Authors should apply quoting publications that have influenced the determination of the nature of the submitted work. Information, obtained privately, in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or represented without the express written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential work, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the express written permission of the author involved in these works.

   Authorship of the work
   Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the present study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If there are those who participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be thanked, or they should be listed as sponsors. The author with whom correspondence is conducted, should ensure that the names of all relevant collaborators are included in the article and one of those who is not a co-author, is not included in it, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article, and gave their consent to its presentation for publication.

   Fundamental errors in the published papers
   When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, he should immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and assist the editor in the withdrawal or amendment of the articles. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work contains a significant error, the author is obliged to immediately withdraw or amend an article or submit proof of the correctness editor original article.


 Editors duties

   Publishing solutions
   Editor of a reviewed journal is responsible for making a decision: which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. Checking the work under consideration and its importance for researchers and readers should always be the basis of such decisions. The editor can be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board, taking into account the existing legislation on defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

   Fair play
   The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality and political views of the authors.

   Editor and all editorial staff should not disclose any information about the assignment of work to anyone except the respective author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and, where appropriate, the publisher.

   Information disclosure and conflict of interest
   Unpublished information, submitted in the manuscript, should not be used in your own research, without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas, obtained during the review process, should be maintained as confidential and shall not be used for personal purposes. Editors should refuse to consider (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board of review and consider exercise) the manuscripts, in respect of which they have a conflict of interest as a result of competitive relations, collaborative relationships or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or (possibly) institutions related articles. Editors should require all participants to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate measures should be taken, for example, publishing a refutation or a statement of concern. Unrefereed journal section should be clearly labeled.

   Participation and cooperation in resolving disputes
   The editor should take reasonable response when filing ethical complaints regarding submitted manuscript or published article, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures typically include a link to the manuscripts or articles author, and due consideration of a complaint or claim, but may also include further contacts with relevant institutions and research institutions, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other materials that may be relevant to the issue. Each message is a publication of the fact of unethical behavior should be considered, even if it is discovered years after publication.


 Reviewers duties

   Participation in the editorial decisions
   Reviewing helps the editor to make editorial decisions and through online communication with the author can help the author to improve his work.

   Any chosen reviewer, who believes that his skills insufficient to review the research, presented in the manuscript, or who knows that it will be impossible to make a review in time, should notify the editor and refuse to participate in the review process.

   All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with others, except with the permission of the editor.

   Standards of objectivity
   Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and convincingly.

   Sources confirmation 
   Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any assertion that the findings, conclusions or argument has been presented previously, should be decorated as a relevant quote. The reviewer must also pay attention to any editor substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other article that he personally knows.

   Disclosure and conflict of interest
   Unpublished submissions filed in the manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained during the review process should be maintained as confidential and shall not be used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts for which they have a conflict of interest as a result of competitive relations, collaborative relationships or other relationships or connections with any of the authors , companies or institutions related articles.



Based on the Elsevier recommendations and guide on best practices COPE (COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics, the ethics committee of publications)