Publishing Ethics

1․ Introduction

The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications consolidates and defines the general principles and rules that shall govern the professional conduct and interactions of all participants involved in the scientific publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers.

This Code, formulated as a concise normative document, has been developed in accordance with the guidelines and standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org), including the International Standards for Editors and Authors, the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers issued by the COPE Council, and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

The principles and rules set forth in this document are mandatory for all parties (individuals) involved in the peer review, editorial processing, and publication of scientific articles submitted to the Proceedings of the National Polytechnic University of Armenia.

2. Key Terms and Definitions

Ethics of scientific publications – a system of professional ethical norms governing the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and readers throughout the processes of creation, dissemination, and use of scientific publications.

Editor (Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board) – a representative of a scientific journal or publishing entity responsible for organizing and overseeing the preparation of materials for publication, as well as for maintaining communication between authors of scientific publications and readers.

Author – an individual or a group of individuals (author group) who participate in the creation of a scientific publication (article) based on the results of their own scientific research.

Reviewer – an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing entity who evaluates submitted manuscripts in order to assess their scientific quality and determine their suitability for publication.

Publisher – a legal or natural person responsible for carrying out the process of publishing a scientific work.

Reader – any individual who has accessed and become acquainted with published materials.

Plagiarism – the deliberate appropriation of authorship of another person’s scientific or artistic work, as well as the unauthorized use of another person’s ideas or inventions.

3. Principles That the Author of a Scientific Publication Must Follow

The author (or group of authors) must understand that they bear primary responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of the scientific research, which entails adherence to the following principles:

Authors must present the reliable results of the research conducted. The presentation of knowingly false or falsified statements is considered unethical and, accordingly, unacceptable conduct.

The author participates in the peer review process of their work. The editor may request from the author additional materials related to the reviewed scientific article in connection with peer review issues, and the author must be ready to provide such materials. All communication required during the peer review between the author and the reviewer shall be conducted in writing exclusively through the editorial office. Breach of reviewer confidentiality is strictly prohibited.

Authors must ensure that the research results presented in the submitted manuscript are entirely original. Borrowed passages or statements must be indicated with obligatory attribution to the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as any manifestation of plagiarism, including unattributed citations, paraphrasing, or appropriation of results of other research, constitutes a continuous ethical violation.

All individuals who contributed in any way to the research must be recognized and acknowledged. In particular, the article must include references to all works that were essential for conducting the research.

Authors must not submit to the journal works that have already been published elsewhere or are under consideration for publication in another journal. If parts of the manuscript were previously published in another article by the same author, a reference must be provided, specifying the significant differences between the new work and the previous one. Verbatim repetition of previous works by the author is unacceptable.

All individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conceptualization, implementation, or interpretation of the research results must be listed as co-authors. Listing as co-authors persons who did not participate in the research is unacceptable. All authors bear equal responsibility for the content of the article.

If, during the discussion or after publication, the author identifies significant errors or inaccuracies in the material, they must notify the editorial office as promptly as possible so that a joint decision can be made regarding recognition of the error and the method of correction.

 

4. Principles of Reviewer Activity

The reviewer performs scientific evaluation of submitted manuscripts, and impartiality of the review process must be ensured through adherence to the following principles:

The review must assist the editor in making a substantiated decision regarding the publication of the work and help the author improve the manuscript.

The manuscript received for review must be regarded as a confidential document, which cannot be shared or discussed with third parties who do not have proper authorization from the editorial office.

The reviewer is obliged to provide an impartial and substantiated assessment of the research results under review. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

Unpublished data contained in the manuscripts submitted for review must not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.

A reviewer who considers themselves insufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript or who cannot remain impartial, for example due to a conflict of interest with the author or the affiliated organization, must inform the editor and request to be relieved from reviewing the manuscript.

 

5. Principles of Professional Ethics for the Editor and Publisher

The editor bears responsibility for the publication of scientific works, guided by the following fundamental principles:

When making a decision regarding publication, the editor must be guided by the reliability of the presented data as well as the scientific novelty and significance of the work under consideration.

The editor must not have any conflict of interest regarding a work accepted for publication or rejected.

The editor must evaluate the scientific content of authors’ works irrespective of race, gender, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status, or political preferences.

Unpublished data in submitted manuscripts must not be used for personal purposes or shared with third parties without the author’s written consent. Information or ideas that become known during the editorial process, as well as potential opportunities for benefit, must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

The editor must not allow publication of information if there are sufficient grounds to suspect elements of plagiarism.

Together with the publisher, the editor must not leave complaints regarding submitted or already published works unaddressed, and in case of a conflict situation, must take all necessary measures to restore violated authors’ rights.