Publication ethics

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1 This Regulation on Publication Ethics was developed by Zhetysu University in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Education", the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Science" and with the requirements of the Committee for Quality Assurance in the Field of Science and Higher Education for scientific publications to include them in the list of publications recommended for publication of scientific results and with the requirements of the Committee according to the publication ethics of SORA.

1.2 This Regulation on Publication Ethics defines the principles and norms of publication ethics in the scientific journal "Bulletin of Zhetysu University named after Ilyas Zhansugurov".

1.3 This Regulation on Publication Ethics defines the norms of behavior of members of the publication process (editorial board, authors, reviewers and publisher), unethical behavior, measures to identify conflicts of interest and ways to resolve them, as well as instructions for revoking and correcting articles, publishing corrections and refutations.

1.4 The Editorial Board, reviewers, and authors must comply with the principles, norms, and standards of publication ethics set forth in this regulation.

 

2. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Ethics of scientific publications is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationships between authors, reviewers, editorial board, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person's personal interest, scientific or financial, can influence the decision–making process when publishing a manuscript.

The editorial board is representatives of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepare materials for publication, as well as maintain communication with authors and readers of scientific publications.

The author(s) is a person or group of persons (a team of authors) involved in the creation of the publication of the results of scientific research.

A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting a scientific examination of manuscripts in order to determine the possibility of their publication.

Publisher is a legal entity or an individual who publishes a scientific publication.

 

3. PRINCIPLES OF PUBLICATION ETHICS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD

3.1 Decision for publications and responsibility for the content of the journal

The editorial board of the journal is responsible for all published manuscripts: for the high quality and reliability of the published manuscripts. The editorial board should be guided by the journal's policy regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

3.2 Impartiality, independence and integrity of the editorial board

The editorial board must adhere to the principles of independence and integrity and evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.

3.3 Editorial confidentiality

3.3.1 Authors

The editorial board must ensure the confidentiality of the authors' material and not disclose information about the manuscript to a third party, with the exception of authors, reviewers and other consultants, before accepting and publishing the manuscript.

 

3.3.2 Reviewers

The editorial board must ensure the confidentiality of reviewers' personal data, except in cases of alleged misconduct by the reviewer (in this case, it may be necessary to disclose the reviewer's name to a third party).

3.4 Conflict of interest

– The Editorial Board should identify all cases of conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships between authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board.

– If a conflict of interest is identified between the authors and the reviewer before the publication of the manuscript, the editorial board is obliged to appoint another reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.

– In case of a conflict of interest after the publication of the manuscript, the editorial board is obliged to consider whether the conflict of interest affected the evaluation of the manuscript and, in case of a conflict of interest, should re-evaluate the manuscript based on an undisclosed conflict of interest.

3.5 The review process

– The editorial board should strive for high quality scientific publications. It must follow strict standards and review procedures to ensure the scientific validity and completeness of the submitted materials.

– The editorial board must ensure an honest and proper independent review process, and for this purpose double-blind peer review is used in the journal Vestnik ZHU.

– The editorial board may reject a manuscript without a review if it is considered low-quality or unsuitable for the readers of the journal, while giving a detailed answer to the reasons for rejecting the manuscript.

– In case of serious violations on the part of the reviewer (violation of one or more points of the principles of publication ethics), the editorial board should refuse to cooperate with this reviewer.

 

4. PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS OF THE AUTHOR'S PUBLICATION

4.1 Reliability and thoroughness

– Research in published manuscripts should be conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of publications.

– Appropriate, modern methods of data analysis and presentation should be used in the research of published manuscripts.

– All authors of the manuscript are collectively responsible for the research carried out and for the content of the manuscript.

– Authors should carefully check their publications at all stages to ensure that all their methods and results are presented accurately.

4.2 Requirements for manuscripts

– Authors must provide honest and non-fabricated results of their research. The images in the manuscript should not be misleading.

– Authors should strive to clearly and unambiguously describe their research methods.

– The authors should provide sufficient information so that other researchers can recreate and repeat the conducted research and experiments. Unexplained facts and contradictory data should not be used in the manuscript.

– Authors should notify the editorial board if errors are found in their manuscripts, even if they have already been published.

– Authors should not refer to the works of other researchers that they have not read themselves.

4.3 Originality and plagiarism

– Published manuscripts must be original and must not have been previously published in any journal or in any language.

– Using someone else's work as an author's work, copying and paraphrasing parts of other people's works without attribution, as well as claiming their own rights to research results obtained by other authors are plagiarism.

– The manuscript should not be sent to several publications at the same time.

– Authors should always refer to works that have been used in the manuscript and are of significant importance for the submitted manuscript.

4.4 Authorship of the publication

– The authors of the manuscript can only be those who have made a significant contribution to the research done and when writing the manuscript. All authors who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The authors of the manuscript must ensure that authors who have made significant contributions and who meet the criteria of authorship are included in the list of authors and these authors will not be excluded from the list of authors.

– When changing the list of authors, all authors must agree to make changes to the list of authors of the manuscript.

4.5 Conflict of interest

– The authors of the manuscript must disclose all existing conflicts of interest in the manuscripts.

– If a conflict of interest is concealed, the manuscript may be rejected by the editorial board.

– If a conflict of interest is detected after the publication of the manuscript, the authors must inform the editorial board about this, in order to check by the editorial board whether this has affected the evaluation of the manuscript by reviewers and, if necessary, undergo a reassessment.

4.6 Review of the manuscript

– The authors must answer the questions of the editorial board on the issues of review as soon as possible.

– Authors can challenge the reviewer's assessment if the assessment is not objective and constructive, if facts of unethical behavior of the reviewer are found. To do this, it is necessary to inform the editorial board about this in order to verify the review and, if necessary, to appoint a new reviewer.

– Authors should inform the editorial board if they refuse to review their manuscript.

 

5. PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS OF THE REVIEWER'S PUBLICATION

5.1 Basic principles of ethics of the reviewer's publication

– Reviewers should agree to review only those articles for which they have sufficient knowledge to evaluate, and which they can review in a timely manner and identify any problems in the experience, before reviewing the manuscript.

– The reviewer must immediately inform the editorial board of the journal, if circumstances change and if it is impossible to fulfill the initial agreement or an extension is required. If the reviewer is unable to review, it is useful to suggest alternative reviewers based on their experience.

– Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or review during or after the review to anyone except those persons who are authorized by the journal and refrain from using the information obtained during the review process for their own benefit or benefit to others, as well as to infringe or discredit others.

– Reviewers should not involve anyone in reviewing the manuscript (including novice researchers who are supervised), without first obtaining permission from the journal, as well as reviewers should be aware that attempts to impersonate another person during the review are a serious violation of appropriate behavior.

– Reviewers should declare all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not.

– Reviewers should not allow the content of their review to be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of its authors, or commercial considerations.

– Reviewers should write the review objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements, as well as from defamatory or humiliating comments.

– If any violations regarding the ethics of research and publications are found, the reviewer must inform the editorial board about this. For example: if the manuscript contains plagiarism, incorrect borrowings, false and fabricated materials or research results.

– Reviewers should understand that, as researchers, they themselves need the conscientious reviews of their colleagues, and therefore they must perform the review in good faith.

5.2 The review process

5.2.1 During the preparation for the review

– Reviewers should promptly respond to the offer to write a review.

– Reviewers should inform directly and immediately if they do not know the subject of the study well enough to write a review.

– Reviewers should agree to review only those manuscripts for which they have sufficient knowledge and are confident that they will be able to prepare a review within the proposed or jointly agreed time period, notifying the journal in a timely manner if they need an extension of the deadline.

– Reviewers should declare all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the current situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not.

– Reviewers should refuse to prepare a review if they feel that they will not be able to give a fair assessment of the manuscript.

– Reviewers should refuse to prepare a review if they participated in any work related to the preparation of the manuscript or in the research described in it.

– Reviewers should refuse to prepare a review if they do not agree with the review rules adopted in the journal, which may either affect their review or devalue it for the reason that they will not be able to effectively meet the requirements of the journal.

– Reviewers should not agree to review only to read the manuscript or to use the manuscript material for their own purposes.

– Reviewers should always follow the journal's policy when situations arise that may interfere with an objective review.

5.2.2 During the review

– Reviewers should refuse to review if they find that there is insufficient knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, without waiting for the date of submission of the review, as this will delay the review process.

– Reviewers should carefully read the manuscript, additional materials, and journal instructions and should contact the journal if they have any questions and request the missing information necessary to compile a high-quality review.

– Reviewers should notify the journal if they discover a conflict of interest that was not noticed before the consent of the review of the manuscript.

– Reviewers should not involve anyone in the review process without obtaining the consent of the editorial board.

– Reviewers should not disclose information about the details of the manuscript and the review.

– Reviewers should inform the editorial board if they suspect the name of the authors and this may create a conflict of interest.

– Reviewers should not delay the review process by delaying the submission of their review or requesting additional unnecessary information from the journal or the author.

– Reviewers should notify the editorial board, if circumstances arise that prevent the timely preparation of the review, in order to provide additional time for the review or to appoint a new reviewer.

– Reviewers should notify the editorial board if errors are found in the manuscript, if unethical work is discovered, if a manuscript is found to be similar to another document, if unfair behavior is detected during research and sending the manuscript to the journal.

5.2.3 After reviewing

– Reviewers should keep the details of the manuscript and the review confidential

– Reviewers should immediately respond if there are questions related to the manuscript and provide the necessary information.

– Reviewers should contact the editorial board if, after sending the review, they have learned any new, important facts that may affect the initial evaluation of the manuscript.

 

6. PRINCIPLES OF PUBLISHING ETHICS OF THE PUBLISHER

– The publisher should support the editorial board of the journal in the ethical aspects of the published manuscripts.

– The publisher must create conditions for the implementation of ethical norms and principles by the editorial board, reviewers, and authors in accordance with this regulation of publication ethics.

– The publishing house must ensure the confidentiality of all parties to the publication process, as well as confidential all information received during the publication process.

 

7. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES, NORMS AND STANDARDS OF PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MEASURES TAKEN IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF PUBLICATION ETHICS

Responsibility for compliance with the norms and standards of ethics of publications of authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board rests with the editor-in-chief and Deputy editor-in-chief.

In case of violation of norms and standards of publication ethics, it is necessary to understand the situation in detail and, when considering the issue of unethical behavior of participants in the publication process, it is necessary to adhere to the principle of confidentiality.

In case of violation of publication ethics, the following measures may be taken:

1) By the authors:

– Investigation and investigation: If serious allegations of ethics violations arise, an investigation may be conducted to clarify the circumstances and take appropriate measures.

– Rejection of the publication: The editorial board may reject the manuscript if serious ethical violations on the part of the author(s) are found.

– Review of already published articles: If it becomes known that the manuscript was published on the basis of falsified data or other ethical violations, the journal may withdraw the manuscript.

– Warning and/or remark: The editorial board of the journal may contact the authors and express their disagreement with the violation of ethics, pointing out specific problems or errors in their publication. In some cases, this may be enough to correct the situation.

– Prohibition of publication: In case of serious violation of publication ethics, authors may be deprived of the right to publish manuscripts in the journal for a certain period of time.

2) Reviewers:

– Resending the article for review: If the editorial board finds that the reviewer has violated ethical standards, it can forward the article to other reviewers for additional evaluation. This reduces the possibility of a biased decision and ensures the objectivity of the review process.

– Change or cancellation of the decision: In case of serious ethical violations, the editorial board has the right to change the decision to publish the article, up to its complete rejection. This can happen if the reviewer is found to have deliberately or unprofessionally violated the ethics of the publication. The editorial board will conduct additional investigations and take appropriate measures.

– Revocation of the reviewer's status: If the reviewer's behavior does not comply with ethical standards on an ongoing basis, the editorial board may decide to revoke his reviewer status.

3) The Editorial Board:

– Warning: a warning may be issued to a member of the editorial board who has violated ethics. This may be a warning aimed at specifying problematic behavior, explaining ethical principles and publication requirements.

– Review of an article: If serious violations of the publication ethics of a member of the editorial board are found, decisions may be made to withdraw an article that was published with violations of the publication ethics.

– Termination of cooperation: In case of repeated or serious violations of ethics, it may be decided to terminate cooperation with a member of the editorial board.

 

8. PUBLICATION OF CORRECTIONS, APOLOGIES, REFUTATIONS AND REVIEW OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The editorial board may publish corrections, if errors or inaccuracies are found in the published article, the authors may request the editor of the journal about the possibility of making corrections. Depending on the nature and severity of the errors, the editorial board may decide to publish the corrected version or post an amendment containing corrections. Corrections are published with the date of correction on the journal's website with a link to the printed source of the typo.

The editorial board may publish an apology if the published article contains a significant error, incorrect interpretation of data or other problems that may affect the reliability of the work, the authors may contact the editor of the journal with a request to publish a public apology. In this case, a separate letter is usually published in which the authors acknowledge the mistake and apologize for it.

The editorial board may publish refutations if the researcher believes that the published article or the results of other work contain errors, are insufficiently substantiated or contradict previous research, he may submit a request for refutation. The refutation must be scientifically based and contain substantial arguments supported by relevant data or literary sources. The editorial board of the journal may consider the refutation and provide an opportunity for the author to publish his counterarguments.

The editorial board may withdraw the manuscript if the authors decide to withdraw their manuscript after its submission to the editorial board, violations of norms and standards of publication ethics are found by the editorial board and reviewers.