Ethical Principles

The standards of ethics of the journal “Acta Albaruthenica” are defined according to COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. They concern authors, editors, reviewers, members of the Scientific Council and the Publisher.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal “Acta Albaruthenica” are checked in order to assure their compliance with the ethical publication standards, as well as to assess their scientific reliability and value.

Standards and duties for Editorial Board members

Criteria for accepting texts for publication: The Editor in Chief decides which texts will be published. When accepting texts for publication, the opinions of reviewers regarding the scientific value of the work, originality of the problem and transparency of the argument are taken into account.
Control of the ethical standards: Editorial Board members of the journal “Acta Albaruthenica” ensure that the standards and rules of ethical behaviour are applied. They counteract any practices contrary to the adopted standards.
Fair play: Manuscripts are evaluated without regard to race, gender, religious belief, origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the author. The evaluation is done only for their intellectual content.
Confidentiality: Editorial Board members do not disclose any information on submitted manuscripts to any unauthorized person. The persons authorized to access such information are: the author, assigned reviewers, Editorial Board members, editors, and the Publisher.
Avoiding competing interests: Unpublished manuscripts cannot be used by Editorial Board members nor by any other person involved in the publication process without the authors’ written consent.
Scientific reliability: Editorial Board members safeguard scientific reliability of the publications. To this end, they may appropriately correct and change submitted manuscripts. In case of a suspected misconduct (plagiarism, research data falsification), they are obliged to reject the article in question.

If such a case occurs, the Editorial Board is obliged to publish appropriate rectifications, explanations or apologies.

Article removal: The Editorial Board is entitled to remove an article after its publication, if:

– there is evidence that research results are not reliable and/or the data is falsified, as well as in case of unintentional errors (for example miscalculations or methodological errors);

– the research results have already been published;

– the work is plagiarized or it contravenes the ethical publication standards.

A notification on article removal shall be understood as a removal of the article. The notification should include information on the author (there should be at least the article title and the author(s)’(s) name(s) indicated) and the reasons for the removal. A distinction should be made between unintentional errors and deliberate misconduct which may constitute a cause for the article removal. Removed articles are not removed from the published version of the journal, their removal should be, however, clearly marked.

Standards for Authors

Scientific reliability: Article authors are obliged to present an account of the research performed and an objective discussion of its results. Articles should contain sufficient information in order to identify the sources used, as well as to permit others to replicate the research. Presenting and interpreting data and research results that is not compliant with the ethical publication standards is unacceptable and may result in the article removal.
Originality of the paper: Authors may submit only their own, original works. The research and/or data of other scholars used in the work should be appropriately and clearly cited or quoted. Plagiarism or data fabrication is unacceptable.
Data access: Authors may be asked to provide the research data which is not cited in the text. They are obliged to provide access to such data, also after publication.
Avoiding authors’ competing interests: Authors should not publish texts presenting the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscripts to more than one journal constitutes unethical behaviour.
Authorship of the paper:

– Authors submitting a manuscript by several authors are obliged to disclose contribution made by particular authors (including their affiliation address and the level of the contribution, i.e. information on the authors of the concept, assumptions, methods, protocols, etc. used during the preparation of the manuscript).

– Ghostwriting and guest authorship are treated as scientific misconduct; all detected cases shall be disclosed and a notification shall be sent to relevant institutions, such as institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.

– Authors submitting a manuscript are obliged to ensure that all those who have made contributions agree on the final form of the manuscript.

Source reliability: Authors are obliged to cite in an attached reference list all publications which have been used when preparing the article.
Errors in the paper: Should (an) author(s) discover any significant errors or inaccuracies in their paper, they are obliged to notify the Editorial Board immediately in order to withdraw the paper or correct the errors.

Standards for reviewers

Reviewers review manuscripts under the Editorial Board’s instructions. Their activity may, therefore, affect Editorial Board members’ decisions. Reviewers may also assist in establishing the final form of the paper and improving publications through communications with the authors.

Deadlines: Reviewers are obliged to submit reviews on a determined date. If, for any reason (due to the topic of the manuscript, lack of time, etc.), they are unable to comply with the time limit or carry out the review, they should notify the Editorial Board immediately.
Confidentiality: All reviewed manuscripts and their reviews are treated as confidential documents. Sharing manuscripts with a third party is unacceptable (with the exception of those who take part in the publication process).
Objectivity standards: Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the authors is deemed at least inappropriate. All comments should be expressed with appropriate arguments.
Source reliability: If such a case occurs, reviewers should mark particular works on the topic of the article which have not been cited by the author. The reviewer should mark all significant similarities between the article and other works, and notify the Editorial Board.
Avoiding competing interests: Reviewers cannot use the manuscripts they review for their own needs or benefits. They should not assess manuscripts where they have potential conflicts of interest with the author(s).