Ethical obligations of editors

1. The members of the editorial board, headed by the editor-in-chief, are responsible for making a decision on the publication of a scientific article, which is based on the principles of reliability and scientific significance of the work presented for consideration.

2. Editors are responsible for compliance with the requirements and recommendations in the scientific article.

3. Editors have the right to consult with reviewers when making a final decision regarding the publication of a scientific article.

4. The Editor shall consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each one accordingly, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or any other affiliation, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s).

5. All responsibility for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the editor. A responsible and balanced approach to the fulfillment of these duties assumes that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer of the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without peer review if the editor considers that they do not meet the profile of this publication.

6. Unpublished data obtained by the editorial board in manuscripts submitted for review, as well as information or ideas obtained during the review, are kept confidential.

7. After the positive decision of the editor, the article is published in the digest and placed on the relevant electronic resources of the institution.

8. The responsibility and rights of the editor of the journal regarding any submitted manuscript, the author of which is the editor himself, must be delegated to any of the members of the editorial board - a specialist based on the profile of the institution.

9. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of a corresponding notice in the next issue of the journal, indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message may be written by the person who discovered this bug or by an independent author.

Ethical obligations of the authors

1. To provide reliable results of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.

2. Authors must ensure the reliability of bibliographic references.

3. Authors should cite those publications that had a decisive influence on the essence of their work, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader to earlier works important for understanding this study. With the exception of reviews, citations to works not directly relevant to this communication should be minimized.

4. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

5. The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication.

6. The authors are obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

1. Peer review helps the editor make a decision about publication and can also help the author improve the quality of the work.

2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he should make this known.

3. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors related to the presented work.

4. The reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

5. Each manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be disclosed or discussed with any persons who do not have certain authority to do so. The exception is cases when the reviewer needs someone's special consultation.

6. Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on.

7. Reviewers should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists that are directly related to the work under review.

8. The reviewers must provide feedback in a timely manner.

9. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review may not be used by reviewers in personal research or references.