The Odessa National Polytechnic University, as the Hoisting and Conveying Equipment peer-reviewed magazine publisher, supports the Elsevier publishing house policy aimed at adhering the publisher’s ethics principles.
One can recall various examples of issues related to publishing ethics the editors inevitably do face in everyday practice, as well as sad occurrences when an author copies a large portion of the “borrowed” study without referencing to the source work, or when the plagiarized study is misappropriated and claimed to issue from false author’s own work, apart that sometimes there occur fake researches and frauds and, sure, unsustained sources or disputes over authorship.
Odessa National Polytechnic University recognizes that tracking compliance to the publishing ethics principles is one of key components of reviewing and publishing process found under the magazine editor-in-chief responsibility. Therefore, the Odessa National Polytechnic University adopted guidelines developed by Elsevier Publishing House as a tool assisting editors, reviewers and authors to comply with their moral obligation. In addition, the Odessa National Polytechnic University closely cooperates with other publishers to put these publishing ethics standards into everyday practice.
These guidelines are based on current Elsevier publishing ethics policy.
Duties of the “Hoisting and conveying equipment” magazine editor-in-chef
Decision to publish an article
This decision always departs from therein exposed data validation and that work importance for researchers and readers assessment. The editor-in-chief should never have any interest conflicts regarding the articles rejected or accepted for publishing. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the editorial board’s consideration shall be accepted and which one are subject to reject. In such decision taking the editor is guided by the magazine’s policy and legal requirements to exclude every occurrence of defamation, plagiarism and copyright infringement. Also the editor-in-chief may, when decision on publication taking, hold consultations with other editorial board members and reviewers.
Fair-minded and dispassionate approach
While submitted materials peer-reviewing, the “Hoisting and conveying equipment” editor-in-chief evaluates those works only by their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship or political views of the authors.
Confidential principle
At reviewing procedure both the “Hoisting and conveying equipment” editor-in-chief and the editorial board shall never disclose data concerning the manuscript to anyone other than the author, reviewer, prospective reviewer, editorial board consultant, and publisher.
Information disclosure and conflicts of interest
The Editors strictly follow the principle that any data left beyond the published article text but clearly representing the author’s finding shall never be used in any of the editor’s own work without the author’s written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained from reviewing must be kept confidential and never used for personal gain.
The editor-in-chef shall refuse from participating in the article review (assigning such review function, for example, to the co-editor, deputy editor-in-chief or other member of the editorial board) in the case when he states a conflict of interest arising out of competition, collaboration or other relations with the concerned authors, companies, or institutions related to that article.
The editor-in-chef should require that all authors contributing to the collected volume provide information on relevant competing interests publish relevant corrections if a conflict of interest has been identified after publication. Where appropriate, another acceptable measure may be taken, such as posting a denial or expressing concern. All supplements and annexes to publications at the collected volume are subject to guarantee the same quality of review as for the main contents. Articles published in those annexes shall be reviewed separately based on their scientific value and interest to readers, and never on some commercial reasons. Non-reviewed sections of the collected volume shall be clearly identified.
Reviewing ethical complaints
When ethical complaints referring a submitted manuscript or published article the “Hoisting and conveying equipment” editor-in-chief shall take all reasonably expeditious steps, in collaboration with the publisher (or ONPU’s scientific and pedagogical staff).
Such measures usually include contacting the manuscript/article author and reviewing the complaint appropriately, but may also include further contact with relevant institutions and scientific organizations and, the complaint confirmed, publication of corrections, refutation, expressions of concern or other relevant comment. Every declared incident of unethical conduct at publication is subject to investigating even those discovered years elapsed after publication.
Duties of reviewers
Contributing to the editorial board decisions
The reviewing process helps the editor in making the decision on work publishing, and, through the editorial’s feedback to author, can also render assistance to author for article improving. Reviewing is an essential component of administrative scientific interaction as an integral part of the scientific method.
The Odessa National Polytechnic University shares the position of Elsevier Publishing House http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/publishing in the sense that all scholars intending to publish articles have a moral obligation for taking part in peer review.
Efficiency
Each selected reviewer, who feels incompetent to review the scientific study described in the manuscript or aware that its operative peer review is impossible, shall notify the editor and hold aloof from the review process.
Privacy
Each manuscript received for review shall be treated as a confidential document. It shall never be displayed or discussed with anyone other than competent persons authorized by the editor.
Objectivity standards
The review procedure shall be done objectively. Unacceptable is indulging in personalities. Whichever case, reviewers shall express their point of view clearly and reasonably.
Sources recognition
If no reference has been made to some work mentioned in the publication, the reviewer should note this fact.
Every statement that any data, conclusion, or argument has already been reported in the scientific press must be accompanied by the appropriate reference. The reviewer must also draw the editor’s attention to the fact of any significant similarity or partial coincidence between the manuscript and any other work known to him personally.
Data disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any data left beyond the published article text but clearly representing the author’s finding shall never be used in any of the reviewer’s own work without the author’s written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained from reviewing must be kept confidential and never used for personal gain.
The reviewer shall refuse from participating in the article review if he detects a conflict of interest arising out of competition, collaboration or other relations with the concerned authors, companies, or institutions related to that article.
Duties of authors
Published works standards
Authors describing original research must provide an accurate report of work carried out, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The exposed research basic data should be accurately presented. The article should contain enough detailed information and references so that others can reproduce the study. Inadmissible are fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements that exemplify unethical behavior.
Data access and storage
The author may be asked to provide his/her study background material for editorial expertise, insofar authors should be prepared to make their raw data publicly available (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible. These data shall be stored for a reasonable time period upon the article published.
Material originality and plagiarism
The article authors should ensure that they have written a completely original work, and if research results and/or wordings obtained by other authors using, such circumstance shall be appropriately referred to by a link or mentioned in the text.
The plagiarism forms are numerous: from publishing another person’s material as the pretending author’s own to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else’s work (without citing the source), and/or up to claiming the pretending author’s rights to results obtained in studies performed by other scientists. Whichever form taking, the published material plagiarism is unethical and inadmissible.
Numerous, duplicate or simultaneous publications
General principle is that authors should not publish more than one article describing the same study. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one periodical is both unethical and unacceptable publishing policy.
The author should never submit to another editorial board any article already published. Sometimes tolerable is to publish at more than one periodical certain types of articles (for example, translation), but subject to relevant requirements: getting from authors and the editor of already published work a consent to such reproducing of a material that should be identical to both information presented and its interpretation according to the original document. Reproducing publication shall contain a link to the article originally published. For a more detailed description of reproduction acceptable forms refer to www.icmje.org.
Recognition of sources
Other researchers’ work shall be properly acknowledged: the authors must provide links to publications that have influenced their described study content. Data obtained privately, for example, in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should never be used or reported without the express written permission of such information source. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the express written permission of such confidential activity-involved work author.
Research authorship
The authorship should be limited to those persons that made a significant contribution to the concept, planning, execution or interpretation of the study described.
All key contributors should be listed as co-authors. Every person engaged to any significant part of the project, shall be referred to or included in the list of contributors.
The contributing author should ensure that all the actual contributors are included in such a list, as well as provide for the research final version reading and approval by all the co-authors getting their consent to submit the article for publication.
Potential hazards and humans or animals engagement to study
If the research involves chemicals, hazardous procedures or equipment that could lead to unacceptable risks, the author should clearly indicate that in the manuscript. Case when the work supposed involving animals or humans, the author must include in his manuscript a statement that all procedures have been completed in accordance with applicable law and service instructions and have been approved by the appropriate committee of institution / organization where the study was conducted. Authors should include in their manuscript a separate statement that they obtained permission for experiments with humans. The right of a person to privacy must also be taken into account.
Information disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or any other material conflict of interest that might be interpreted as affecting their manuscript evaluation results. All sources of the project’s financial support must be disclosed.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed are: employment, counseling, shareholding, fees payment, expertise payment, patent pending or patent registration, grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be made known as early as possible.
Fundamental errors at published works
If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published article he is responsible to promptly inform the periodical’s editor and collaborate effectively with the editor to publish a refutation or corrigenda to such article. If the editor learns from a third party that the published study contains a significant error, it is the responsibility of the author to urgently refute or correct the article, or to provide the editor with proof of his published work correctness.
Detection of plagiarism
The Odessa National Polytechnic University is committed to assisting the scientific community in all aspects for implementing a policy on compliance with publishing ethics, especially in cases of duplicate submissions or plagiarism.