The editorial staff of Mechanics and Advanced Technologies adheres to the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and does its best to prevent any breach of these standards. This declaration is in keeping with the policy of the journal and it is one of the main components of reviewing and publication of the journal.
The editorial staff of Mechanics and Advanced Technologies considers the recommendations and adheres to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit, the publisher Elsevier, as well as takes into account the experience of reputable international journals and publications.
The following criteria formulate the mandatory principles of professional conduct with respect to all parties involved in writing, reviewing and publishing a scientific article: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers. Adherence to the ethical standards of a scientific publication by all participants in the process contributes to the protection of authors' intellectual property rights, improving the quality of the Mechanics and Advanced Technologies journal in the eyes of the domestic and world scientific community and eliminating the possibility of unauthorized use of copyrighted material in favor of individuals.
1. Ethical obligations of the editorial staff
1. All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial staff reserves the right to reject an article, which does not meet the requirements, or return it for revision. The author is supposed to revise the article in consideration of remarks made by reviewers or the editorial staff.
2. The editor should review all manuscripts submitted for publication without bias, regardless of the race, religion, nationality, status or the place of work of the author(s).
3. The editor should review the manuscripts submitted for publication within the shortest possible time.
4. All responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript rests with the editor. As a rule, a responsible and balanced approach to the fulfillment of these obligations implies that the editor should consider the recommendation of a reviewer, namely a Doctor of Science of a relevant scientific direction, in terms of the quality and reliability of a manuscript submitted for publication. However, the editorial staff may reject manuscripts without reviewing them if they do not correspond to the journal’s area of specialization.
5. The editor and members of the editorial staff should not give other persons information relating to the content of a manuscript under review, except those who are involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After the editorial staff has made a favorable decision, an article is published in the journal and posted on corresponding Internet resources.
6. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
7. The responsibility and rights of a journal's editor in terms of any submitted manuscript, authored by this editor, should be delegated to other qualified person.
8. If the editor is given convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of written work that is published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should report the error and, if possible, correct it. This report may be made by the person, who has detected the error, or by an independent author.
9. An author may request the editor not to involve some members of the editorial staff in reviewing a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to involve one or more reviewers if s/he feels that their opinions are important for the unbiased review of the manuscript. For example, such decision can be made when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript and the previous work done by a potential reviewer.
2. Ethical obligations of authors
1. The basic obligation of the author is to give the accurate report about research and the objective discussion of its significance.
2. The volume of the journal is a limited resource, therefore the author is obliged to use it rationally and economically.
3. The initial report about the results of research should be sufficiently full, containing necessary references to available sources of information so that experts in this field could use this work. If necessary, the author should make reasonable endeavors to provide other researchers with the samples of unusual materials that cannot be obtained in any other way. In this case, agreements on the transfer of materials, which reduce the scope of their application to protect the legitimate interests of authors, shall be adopted.
4. The author should cite those publications that have had decisive influence on the gist of the work being presented, as well as those publications that can promptly acquaint a reader with earlier works important for understanding this research. Apart from the reviews, the citations of works that are not directly relevant to the report should be minimized. The author shall conduct a literature search to find and cite original publications describing investigations closely related to this report. The sources of the essential materials used in this work should be properly indicated as well, if they are not obtained by the author himself.
5. The work should clearly identify any hazards and risks associated with research.
6. The fragmentation of reports on research should be avoided. A scientist, who conducts extensive research on a system or group of related systems, should organize publication so as to make a full report on each aspect of the overall study.
7. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author should inform the editor about his/her related manuscripts submitted or accepted for printing. Copies of these manuscripts should be presented to the editor and their links to the manuscript submitted for publication are to be indicated.
8. The author should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results in more than one journal as a primary publication, unless it is a resubmission because of a rejection by journal's editors or withdrawal of the manuscript by the author. Suppose the author may submit a full article in manuscript that elaborates on the concise preliminary report on the same work, which was previously published. When submitting such manuscript, however, the editor should be notified of an earlier report, while the preliminary report should be cited in the manuscript.
9. The author should state clearly sources of all cited information except common knowledge. Information that has been obtained privately in the course of a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used or disclosed in the work of the author without the prior consent of the researcher who provided this information. This also holds true for information received from rendering of confidential services, for instance, when reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants.
10. Experimental research or theoretical investigations can sometimes serve as a basis for criticizing another researcher's work. Published articles may contain, as appropriate, similar criticism. However, personal criticism cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.
11. The co-authors of the article should be all those, who have made a significant scientific contribution to the work and who share responsibility for the obtained results. Other contribution should be mentioned in article's Acknowledgements. Administrative relations with the research shall not be cause for qualifying a responsible person as a co-author (in some cases, however, it may be expedient to note considerable administrative assistance to the work). The deceased, who meet the above criteria, should be put on the List of Contributors and the date of their death specified. Fictitious names cannot be specified as the author or co-author of the work. The author, who submits the manuscript for publication, is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes only those persons who meet the criteria of authorship. If an article is written by several authors, the author, who submits contact details and documents as well as carries on correspondence with editors, takes the responsibility for the consent of other authors of the article to its publishing in the journal.
12. Authors should inform the editor about any potential conflict of interest, such as consulting or financial interests of a company, which could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors should ensure that there are no contractual relationship or material rights, which could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.
3. Ethical obligations of reviewers
1. Since the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication, therefore each scientist is obliged to do a certain amount of work on the review.
2. If a chosen reviewer is not sure that his or her skills correspond to the level of research described in a manuscript, s/he should return the manuscript immediately.
3. The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of a manuscript, experimental and theoretical material, its interpretation and presentation, as well as consider the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
4. The reviewer should consider the potential for a conflict of interest when a manuscript is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. When in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.
5. The reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript if s/he has personal or professional connections with the author or co-author, and if such relationship may affect the evaluation of the manuscript.
6. The reviewer should consider a manuscript submitted for a review as a confidential document. The reviewer should not show the manuscript to other persons or discuss it with colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer seeks someone's special advice.
7. Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors could understand on what grounds the reviewers make their remarks. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published should be accompanied with a proper reference.
8. The reviewer should note any instances of the insufficient citation of other scientists directly related to the peer-reviewed work; whereas it should be borne in mind that remarks about the insufficient citation of reviewer's own research may have a bias in favor of the latter. The reviewer should draw editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.
9. The reviewer should give timely a written opinion of a manuscript.
10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript without the author's consent. However, when the information indicates that some of reviewer's own research may be not worthwhile, the cessation of such work by the reviewer does not run counter to ethical standards.
4. Ethical obligations of a publisher
A publisher is responsible for the publication of copyrighted material, adhering to the following fundamental principles and procedures:
1. Facilitate the fulfillment of ethical obligations by the editorial staff, publishing team, reviewers and authors.
2. Assist the editorial staff to deal with complaints about the ethical aspects of published material and help them interact with other journals and/or publishers if this facilitates the fulfillment of editors' obligations.
3. Abide by the provision that journal's activity is a non-profit-making project.
4. Facilitate the process of publishing corrections, clarifications, denials and apologies if necessary.
5. Enable the editorial staff to revoke publications containing plagiarism and unreliable data.