National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" as the publisher of the scientific journal Mechanics and Advanced Technologies recognizes the principles developed by 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. 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 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.
Ethical obligations of authors
Authors must adhere to high standards with respect to publication ethics, remain in good communication with the editor(s), the publisher and any co-authors. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavor.
By submitting a manuscript to this journal, each author explicitly confirms that the manuscript meets the highest ethical standards from the author and coauthors including proper statistical investigations and thorough ethical reviews by the data owning organizations.
We consider unacceptable:
(1) Plagiarism (and self-plagiarism) in whole or in part without proper citation. All the citations should be correct. An author need to have written permission from the copyright owner for any reproduced figures or tables – exceptions exist under the fair dealing concept. An author must guarantee his/her submission is original, owned by the author, that no part of it has been previously published (partly or in full), and that no other agreement to publish it or a part of it is outstanding. The manuscript must not be under consideration elsewhere.
Manuscripts submitted to Mechanics and Advanced Technologies are screened with UniCheck anti-plagiarism software in an attempt to detect and prevent plagiarism.
(2) Falsification or fabrication of data. No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support conclusions. Fabrication, falsification or selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is unethical, as is the theft of data or research results from others. If an author uses secondary data (datasets gathered by someone else), he/she need to obtain copyright clearance before data can be reproduced (exceptions exist under the fair dealing concept).
(3) Misappropriation of others’ work. All the contributors to an article are to be included and all acknowledgments should be up-to-date. An author(s) should acknowledge the work of others used in the research and cite publications that have influenced the direction and course of the study.
(4) The deliberate exclusion of information regarding financial support that would be viewed as a conflict of interest. An author should openly to disclose any conflict of interest – for example, if publication were to benefit a company or services in which the author(s) has a vested interest.
The manuscript should be approved by all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute or organization where the work has been carried out.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he/she has done, a corresponding author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
Adding and/or deleting authors at revision stage may be justifiably warranted. A letter must accompany the revised manuscript to explain the role of the added and/or deleted author(s). Further documentation may be required to support the request.
To ensure objectivity and transparency in research and to ensure that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed, authors should include information regarding sources of funding, potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial).
When authors discover a serious error in their work, they must report this to the Managing Editor as soon as possible in order to modify the work, withdraw it, retract it, or publish a correction or erratum notice.
Allegations of unethical conduct will be discussed initially with the corresponding author. In the event of continued dispute, the matter will be referred to the author's institution and funding agencies for investigation and adjudication.
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.
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.
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.