Editorial ethics policy

Fundamental principles

The editorial board of the journal “Applied Aspects of Information Technology” (AAIT) embraces the policy of the publishing house “Elsevier” aimed at observing the principles of publishing ethics (http://www.elsevier.com/about/publishing-guidelines/publishing-ethics). The editorial board also accepts guidelines developed by Elsevier to help editors, reviewers and authors in the discharge of their moral duty, rejects plagiarism or other unethical behavior and does not publish manuscripts that do not comply with these norms. These guidelines are based on the current Elsevier publishing ethics policy.

Authors should be familiarized with publishing ethics and comply with the provisions of publishing ethics, conflict of interest and distribution of materials; they should avoid the simultaneous submission of one material to several publications, plagiarism, data manipulation, etc.

Collaboration with Authors

The Editorial Board provides Authors with detailed instructions regarding the editorial and publishing process, informs on the deadlines for receiving materials and the dates of publication of issues.

Authors are provided with a detailed description of the review process; in case of any deviations from the process described, Editorial Board is required to provide an explanation to the Author.

The Editorial Board determines the criteria for evaluating materials and selects Reviewers for each manuscript.

The Editorial Board sends detailed Reviewers comments to Authors.

The Editorial Board retains the right to minor literary editing and correction while respecting the Author’s style.

In the case of the Author’s disagreement with the editorial decision, the journal declares an appeal mechanism to the Editorial Board (see the Review Process, see the Appellation Process).

At the request of the Author, the manuscript can be removed from consideration and archived in the journal system (with the subsequent possibility of restoring it in the queue). To do this, the Author must contact the Editoral Board with the appropriate request.

Author Status

The Author of the manuscript is the researcher who made a contribution to all subsequent stages of the article:

– formulating the idea, the problem and objectives of the study;

– development of the concept and design of the manuscript, data collection, analysis and interpretation;

– drafting of an scientific message or its critical review and correction;

– approval of the final version for publication.

Each Author is responsible for the content of the article. If the work is done by a group of scientists, it is necessary to include in the list of authors persons meeting the above criteria and add the name of the group.

Research funding or general control over the work of the group is not authorship.

Replacing Authors. If in the period from the submission of the manuscript to the moment of its publication for any reason, the list of authors needs to be amended, the Author who contributes the manuscript should contact the Editors and indicate the reason for the changes.

Reviewers and editors are required to conduct an unbiased peer review of manuscripts, respecting confidentiality and declaring in advance the existence of a conflict of interest.

Collaboration with Reviewers

Editorial Board provides Reviewers with detailed instructions on how to work in the journal system.

Editorial Board asks the Reviewer to note the presence of a possible conflict of interest before it agrees to review the material submitted to him.

Editorial Board asks Reviewers to report all cases of plagiarism.

Editorial Board sends Reviewers a message of appreciation for their contribution to the journal.

Editorial Board ensures that the qualifications of all Reviewers correspond to the level of the professional publication, and, if necessary, adjusts the team list.

Editorial Board terminates collaboration with Reviewers who provide reviews of poor quality or with a constant delay.

Editorial Board uses a number of sources (not only personal contacts) to identify potential Reviewers (field specific databases).

Editorial Board ensures that the review process is fair, objective, unbiased and timely.

Editorial Board adapts the review process to the needs of Reviewers and provides an opportunity for each of them to carry out the review in the most convenient way for him (through a journal system or via e-mail).

Collaboration with Editors

The Editorial Board is obliged to

Provide new Editors with detailed instructions for working with the journal system and features of the editorial and publishing process.

Regularly review the list of Editorial Board.

Permanently inform Editorial Board members about innovations.

Provides clear instructions to Editors regarding their functions, powers and responsibilities (to support and promote the journal).

Periodically consult with members of the Editorial Board, informs about changes in journal policy, technical innovations and exchanges proposals for the future functioning of the journal.

Editors carefully consider all disputable situations and violations; if necessary, carries out the correction and removal of materials.

General Responsibilities and Responsibility of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board is responsible for the quality of the content published in the journal.

During the publishing process, the Editorial Board provides technical and information support to users of the journal.

The Editorial Board ensures the integrity of the received materials.

The Editorial Board ensures the confidentiality of materials filed in the journal during the entire editorial and publishing process.

The Editorial Board ensures that all participants in the reaction and publishing process have received the necessary training, as well as provided with detailed instructions and recommendations on peer review and work in the journal.

The Editorial Board takes into account the comments and suggestions of readers, Authors and Reviewers on how to improve the work of the publication

The Editorial Board promptly responds to any complaints about the work of the journal and ensures that all problematic situations are resolved.

Collaboration with readers

The Editorial Board ensures that readers are properly informed and that new content is posted.

The Editorial Board ensures that all published scientific materials are reviewed by qualified experts.

Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest are factors that negatively affect objectivity, or can be perceived as interfering with the review process, editorial decision making, publication and presentation of a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may arise in relation to individuals or organizations, and is divided into the following categories (but not limited to those indicated):

Personal conflict of interest implies

Personal relationships (for example, friends, family members, current or previous research supervisors, opponents) with people involved in submitting or reviewing manuscripts (authors, reviewers, editors or members of the Editorial Board);

Personal beliefs (political, religious, ideological, etc.) related to the subject of the manuscript and which might interfere with the objective publication process (at the stage of submission, review, editorial decision making or publication).

Professional conflict of interest implies

The Reviewer or Editor is a colleague of the Author who participated in or oversaw the study.

Membership in organizations that lobby for the interests of the Author.

Financial conflict of interest implies

Research grants from various funders: governmental, nongovernmental, research, or charitable institutions.

Patent applications (existing or expected), including applications of institutions to which the Author relates, and from which Author can make a profit;

Fees, gifts and rewards of any kind

All persons related to the manuscript, including Authors, Editors, Reviewers and Readers who comment on or evaluate this material, should reveal conflict of interest if it has taken place.

If, in the opinion of Editors, there are circumstances that may affect the review of the material, the editors do not involve such a Reviewer.

The Editors reserve the right not to publish the manuscript if the conflict of interest declared by the Author threatens the objectivity and reliability of the evaluation of the study.

If the Editors reveal a conflict of interest that was not declared at the time of submission - the manuscript may be rejected. If an undeclared conflict of interest is discovered after publication, the article can be corrected or deleted if necessary.

Edition and Edition of Texts

Depending on circumstances, the Editors make the necessary changes and clarifications to the content, publish disclaimers and apologies.

The Editors can allow minor editing (correcting small errors) and clarifying the content of the article, which improve its content, but do not significantly change its structure as a whole. To do this, it is necessary to send a request to the Editor.

Commenting Published Articles

The web pages of published articles provide for the possibility of comments by users (including unregistered ones). The Editors encourage users to leave as much feedback as possible about the published material.

The Editorial Board promptly reviews and responds to justified criticism of materials published in the journal, informs the Authors of the articles about the feedback received and asks for clarification.

Commenting should have the character of a civilized scientific discussion:

– may contain explanations and additions to the content and the results of a particular article;

– arguments must be accompanied by a link to published resources or contain an exhaustive scientific rationale;

– comments of a different nature (offensive and obscene language, advertising and Spam) will be deleted;

– user accounts that violate the above rules will be annulled.

Manuscript Submitted to Several Publishers

When submitting, the Authors must confirm that the manuscript (or its modified version) is not currently sent for review and publication in another journal. If such article has already been submitted or published in another journal, the Editors will not consider such manuscripts.

Ethical responsibilities of editors

All published materials are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to modify the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the Editorial Board.
The editor must without prejudice examine all manuscripts submitted for publication, appreciating worthily each one, regardless of racial, religious, national identity, as well as of the position or place of work of the author(s).
The editor should, as possible, early review the manuscripts submitted for publication.
All responsibility for accepting or rejecting the manuscript lies with the editor. Responsible and balanced approach to the execution of these duties usually implies that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer - the doctor of science of the relevant scientific area regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts can be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal profile.
The editor-in-chief and editors should not provide other persons with any information related to the content of the manuscript under consideration, except for those who participate in the professional assessment of this manuscript. After the editor’s positive decision regarding the manuscript, the article is published in a journal and posted on the relevant electronic resources.
The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
The responsibility and rights of a journal editor in respect of any submitted manuscript, authored by the editor himself, should be delegated to some other qualified person.
If the editor is provided with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should contribute to publishing of the corresponding message indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message may be written by the person who discovered this error or by an independent author.
The author may require the editor not to involve some reviewers to reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to involve one or more of these reviewers if he feels that their opinions are important for the impartial reviewing of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example, in the case when there are serious contradictions between this manuscript and the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Ethical responsibilities of authors

The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report on the study, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
The volume of journal is a limited resource. Therefore, the author is obliged to use it reasonably and economically.
The initial report on the results of the research should be sufficiently complete and contain the necessary references to available sources of information so that specialists in this area can repeat this work. If required, the author should make reasonable efforts to provide other researchers with samples of unusual materials that cannot be obtained in any other way; at the same time, appropriate material transfer agreements are adopted, limiting the use of such materials in order to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
The author should cite those publications that have had a decisive influence on the essence of the work presented, as well as those that can quickly acquaint the reader with earlier works that are essential to an understanding of this study. With the exception of reviews, the quotations of papers that are not directly related to this study should be minimized. The author is obliged to conduct a literary search in order to find and quote the original publications, which describe studies that are closely related to this message. It is also necessary to properly indicate the sources of the fundamentally important materials used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the author himself.
The manuscript should clearly indicate any hazards and risks associated with the research.
Fragmentation of study reports should be avoided. A scientist who performs extensive research on a system or group of related systems should arrange for publication in such a way that each message gives a complete report on every aspect of the overall study.
When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor about the related manuscripts submitted for publication or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts must be submitted to the editor, and their connections to the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated. The editorial board accepts for publication in the journal only the original manuscript, that does not contain plagiarism, has not been previously published or sent to other publishers. In the case of using the results of his own research (in particular, the doctorate thesis or similar papers), the author guarantees 60 or more percent of originality of the manuscript submitted for publication (i.e. containing no more than 40 % of borrowings from materials of other own works).
The author should not submit manuscripts that essentially describe the same results in more than one journal as a primary publication, unless it is a repeated submission rejected by the journal or recalled by the author. It is permissible to submit a manuscript of a complete article expanding a previously published brief preliminary report on the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, the editor should be notified of the earlier paper, and this preliminary paper should be quoted in this manuscript.
The author must clearly indicate the sources of all cited or submitted information, with the exception of well known. Information obtained in private, in the process of conversation, during correspondence or during discussion with third parties should not be used or quoted in the author's work without the express permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained. Information obtained in providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.
Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes provide a basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. Articles published in appropriate cases may contain similar criticism. Personal criticism, however, cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances.
The co-authors of the article should be all those persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results obtained. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the "Thanks to" section. Administrative relations with this study are not in themselves a basis for qualifying the person concerned as a co-author (but in some cases it may be appropriate to note significant administrative assistance in the work). Deceased persons who meet the criteria set forth above should be included among the authors, and the note should indicate the date of their death. Fictitious names should not be specified as an author or co-author. The author, who submits the manuscript for publication, is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes all those and only those persons who meet the criterion of authorship. In an article written by several authors, one of the authors who submits contact information, documents to the editorial board, and is in correspondence with editors takes responsibility for the consent of the other authors to publish article in a journal.

Authors should give the editor notice of any potential conflict of interest, for example, the consulting or financial interests of any company that could be affected by the publication of the results contained in this manuscript. Authors must guarantee that there are no contractual or property considerations that could affect the publication of the information contained in the submitted manuscript.

Ethical responsibilities of reviewers

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, thus, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to perform a certain proportion of reviewing.
If the involved reviewer is not sure that his qualification corresponds to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he should immediately return the manuscript.
The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the presented experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and also take into account to what extent the work conforms to high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
The reviewer must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript in question is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If there are doubts, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.
The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript, with the author or co-author of which reviewer have personal or professional contacts if such a relationship may affect the judgment of the manuscript.
The reviewer must treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to other persons or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone's special advice.
Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that the observation, conclusion or argument has already been published should be accompanied by a corresponding reference.
The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation of other scholars works directly related to the work under review; herewith it should be borne in mind that comments on the insufficient citation of the reviewer's own research may look like biased. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities between the manuscript in question and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted to another journal.
The reviewer must provide timely review.
Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript in question, unless authorized by the author. However, when such information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may not be effective, the reviewer's termination of such work does not contradict ethical responsibilities.

Editorial ethics policy

Current Issue