Ethics of publications
The editors of the Electronic Journal “Engineering in Kazakhstan” are guided by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Mass Media”, as well as the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE’s Best Practices Guidelines for Journal Editors, www.publicationethics.org).
The editorial staff also takes into account the experience of authoritative international journals and publishers and does everything possible to comply with ethical rules and norms accepted by the international scientific community. The ethics of scientific publications unites the general principles and rules to guide participants (authors, reviewers, editors, publishers) in the process of scientific publications.
OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS
1.1 The authors of the article should indicate that the work has not been published before. If the elements of the manuscript were previously published in another article, the authors are obliged to refer to earlier work and indicate a significant difference of the new work from the previous one. Verbatim copying of own works and their paraphrasing are unacceptable; they can be used only as a basis for new conclusions. Text or graphic information obtained from the work of others, require references to the relevant publications or the author’s written permission. An article must not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration, otherwise will be considered as unethical behavior.
Confirmation of sources
- Authors should recognize the contributions of others who have influenced to the study. It is necessary to have bibliographic list. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used without obtaining their written permission.
The authorship of the work
- The list of authors should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the research. The author must ensure that the names of all co-authors and participants of the project are placed on the lists of co-authors and participants, and that all co-authors got acquainted with the final version of the scientific work and approved it, and also consented to its publication.
Principles of humanity in relation to animals
The editors ask the authors to adhere to the principles of bioethics in animal studies.
Quality of provided materials
- The article should be made in accordance with the requirements of the editorial office of the journal. Deviation from these requirements is allowed only upon agreement with the editorial board. Information about the authors must be reliable. If any information is changed, the authors must immediately notify the editorial office thereof.
- If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published article, he must immediately notify the editor or publisher of the magazine and assist them in correcting or eliminating the error.
2 DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL OFFICE
Assessment of the manuscript
2.1. The papers submitted for consideration should contain the scientific results received by the authors, which have not been published elsewhere.
Each article is reviewed by a blind method (peer review, in which the reviewer does not know the author’s name, and the author does not know the names of reviewers); experts freely comment on the level and clarity of the presentation of the presented material, its relevance to the journal’s profile, novelty and reliability of the results. The recommendations of reviewers are the basis for deciding on the publication of the article.
2.2. The responsibility for the decision to publish is entirely on the editorial board of the journal.
The editorial board decides to publish, guided by the policy of the journal, taking into account the current legislation in the field of copyright.
The editors evaluate the manuscripts solely on their scientific content, irrespective of race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship and political views of the authors.
In case of a positive decision by reviewers and editorial staff, the article publishes in the next issue of the journal, copyright reserves for authors.
2.3. The editor and all members of the editorial staff are not allowed to disclose information about the works submitted to anyone other than the relevant authors, reviewers, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher.
The editor and editorial staff do not have the right to use in any way unpublished materials used in the submitted manuscript, without the consent of the author.
Conflict of interest and resolution of ethical conflicts
2.4. In the event of a conflict of interest as a result of competitive relations, cooperation or other relations and links with one of the authors, companies or institutions associated with submitted manuscripts, the editor submits the manuscript for consideration to another member of the editorial board.
Editors should ask all participants in the process to disclose existing competing interests. If the competition of interests was revealed after the publication of the article, the editorial staff is obliged to ensure the publication of the amendments.
When submitting an ethical complaint regarding a given manuscript or a published article, the editor must take reasonable responses in cooperation with the publisher. Every report of a fact of unethical behavior will be considered, even if it was received years after the publication of the article. If the complaint is justified, appropriate corrections, refutations, or apologies will be published.
3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions
3.1. Expert evaluation helps the editor in making editorial decisions and through the cooperation of the editor and the author can help the author in improving his work.
3.2 The reviewer, who believes that his qualifications are insufficient to consider the research presented in the scientific work, or knows that the speed of its consideration will be too low, should notify the editor about it and refuse the review process.
3.3 Any manuscript submitted for examination must be treated as a confidential document. It is inadmissible to show it to other reviewers or to discuss with other experts without the prior permission of the chief editor.
Standards of objectivity
3.4 Reviews on scientific papers should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are required to express their views clearly and reasonably.
Confirmation of sources
3.5 Reviewers should identify published materials in the manuscript reviewed, which were not quoted by the authors. Any statements, conclusions or arguments that have already been used in any publications before, should be properly formatted as quotations. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor’s attention to a substantial or partial similarity with any other work with which the reviewer is directly familiar.
Use of information
3.6 Unpublished materials used in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer’s own studies without the written consent of the author. Closed information or ideas obtained during the review should remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not participate in the examination and evaluation of manuscripts in which they are personally interested.