Food technology → Publication ethics

Publication ethics

The editorial board of the science and technology journal named Izvestiya vuzov (Higher Education Institutions Proceedings). Food Technology tends to stick to the publication ethics standards and seeks to prevent any misconduct.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the paper if the rules given below are violated.

Editors’ Responsibility Typescript Evaluation

The paper accepted for approval suggests its having new non-trivial insights into the research subject that have never been published before.

Each paper is reviewed using the double blind method, the experts being totally entitled to express freely their reasonable criticism on how well and clearly the matter presented is worded as well as it complies to the journal type, whether it’s new and valid. The reviewers’ advice provides for the final publication decision the journal, editors having full responsibility for it. The editors make a publication decision following the journal policy regarding the existing copyright legislation. The editors look at the typescripts submitted solely in terms of their theoretical value irrespective of the author’s race, sex, sexual orientation, faith, nationality, citizenship, political views. If accepted the paper is subject to public access the author reserving the copyright.

Confidentiality

The editor and all the editorial staff are not to give information on papers submitted to anyone but to the corresponding authors, reviewers, other editorial advisers and, if necessary, to the publisher. The editor and the staff are not entitled to make use of the unpublished materials from the typescript submitted in their own papers without the author’s written consent.

Handling Interests and Ethics Conflict

In case of interests conflict that the competition, cooperation and other relation with one of the authors, companies or institutions having to do with the typescripts submitted results in, the editor is to hand it over to another editorial board member.

The editors are to ask about the participants’ competing interests. If the interests clash was revealed after the paper was published, the editors are to provide for the corrections issued. In case of ethical complaint on the typescript submitted or the paper published the editor is to take reasonable measures in return cooperating with the publisher (or the public). Every report on ethical misconduct will be considered, even if it is received after a number of years. If the complaint remains, the relevant corrections, retractions and excuses are issued.

Reviewers’ Responsibility

Contributing to Editorial Decisions

Peer review helps the editor to make an editorial decision and by means of his/her cooperation with the author helps the author to improve the paper.

Access to Data and their Keeping

Authors can be asked to submit initial data for editorial review. They are to be ready to provide public access to them if it is possible and whatever the case are to be prepared for keeping the initial materials within a reasonable period of time after the publication.

Novelty and Plagiarism

Authors are to submit only new papers. Textual as well as drawing information from other papers may be borrowed if they have references or the author’s written consent.

Multiple, Repeating and Competing Publications

Authors are to point out that their paper is first published. If the typescript parts were published in another paper, reference is to be made to the previous one and to show their essential difference. Word-for-word copies of own papers or their periphrasis are not to be admitted^ new conclusions can be derived from them. The same paper submitted to more than one journal is to be considered in terms of ethical misconduct and thus to be rejected.

Proving the Sources

Authors are to recognize other peoples’ contribution that has had an effect on the research presented. Bibliographical reference to the papers used is compulsory. Information received privately, from talks as well as discussions with third parties is not to be used without public written consent of the source.

Authorship

Authorship is to be limited to those contributing greatly to the research concept, design, performance and and interpretation. Those who contributed greatly are to be specified as co-authors. Those who participated in a number of essential aspects of the research project are to be listed as its participants. The author is to ensure that the names of the co-authors as well as the participants are listed, and the first ones are familiar with the final version of the paper on its approval and agreeing to have it published.

Giving Information and Interests Conflict

All the authors are to give information on any financial and other great interest conflicts able to affect the research findings or the way the latter are interpreted. All the sources are to be made public.

Being Humane towards Animals

Editors ask authors to follow bioethics rules while researching into animal objects.

Great Mistakes in the Papers Published

If the author finds out a great mistake or an error in his paper published, he/she is to inform the editor or the journal publisher of it without delay as well as to assist the latter in eliminating or correcting them. If the editor or the publisher learns about the mistakes from a third party, the author is to eliminate or to correct them in no time or submit the data proving that the initial paper is correct.

Efficiency

Any reviewer to evaluate the paper who thinks that it’s outside the scope of his expertise or knows that he can consider not so fast is to inform the editor of it and give up looking at it.

Confidentiality

Any typescript subject to peer review is to be treated as a confidential document. It is not to be shown to or to be discussed with other reviewers unless the opposite has been agreed with the editor.

Being Unbiased

Comments on the papers are to be unbiased. The author’s personal criticism is inappropriate. The reviewers are to give clear and reasoned comments.

Proving the Sources

The reviewers are to find out the papers in the material subject to criticism that is not referred to by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or reasons expressed that have been used in other publications before are to be validated as references. The reviewer is also to call the editor’s attention to the essential or partial similarity to another paper he/she is familiar with.

Revealing Information and Interests Conflict

The unpublished materials used in the typescript submitted are not to be used in the reviewer’s own papers without the author’s written consent. Protected information or the ideas obtained while reviewing the paper are to remain confidential and not to be used to his/her advantage. The reviewers are not to consider or evaluate the typescripts if the latter are of their private concern.

Authors’ Responsibility

Reporting Standards

We expect the authors to give the valid results of the research done as well as unbiased discussion of its value. The data assumed as the research basis are to be clearly expressed in writing. The paper is to contain enough information to be tested and experimented again by other researchers. Dishonest statements as well as those that are deliberately given as false are to be treated equally in terms of ethical misconduct that is unacceptable.

© 2010—2017 “KubSUT” FSBEI HE. All rights reserved.