Publishing Ethics

This document provides guidelines of ethical principles for the persons interested in publication activities of Association for science, including Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, Authors and Reviewers.

These principles have been developed by the Editor-in-Chief and are regularly updated, reviewed/edited to meet the modern requirements.  

Introduction

Journal "Georgian Scientists" is focused on creating innovation, development of science and various fields for this purpose it annually publishes scientific papers in the journal enabling readers to periodically get introduced conducted research findings.

Document was prepared on the principles of fairness, objectivity, confidentiality and transparency to protect the interests of publication activities and introducing/sharing by the stakeholders (scientists, young researchers).

Its aim is to determine the professional dignity of the ’’Georgian Scientists’’ on the basis of moral responsibility, to respect its activities and to establish trust in the society towards highly qualified scientific publications.

Instructions

a.  Ethical Norms for the Editor-in Chief of the Collection of Scientific Papers for the Editor-in Chief

1. The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to fairly and decently review all scientific papers submitted for publication, regardless of the author/authors' race, creed, nationality, gender, length of service and membership of the organization.
2. The Editor-in-Chief is obliged to review the papers submitted for publication within the specified period of time.
3. The responsibility for accepting and rejecting a scientific paper for publication is solely on the Editor-in-Chief. To perform this duty conscientiously and thoroughly, the Editor-in-Chief traditionally appeals to the anti-plagiarism program and to fair reviewers with relevant experience for advice on the quality and authenticity of a paper submitted for publication. However, the paper may be rejected without evaluation if the Editor-in Chief believes that it is unsuitable for the collection. The reason for the rejection of the scientific paper may be non-compliance with the requirements developed by the Department of Scientific Research and Development of the East European University for the collection of Scientific Papers, such as exceed volume, violation of the APA style, its non-actuality and etc.
4. The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board are obliged not to disclose information about the paper under revision to other persons except those from whom they receive professional advice on the paper. (though the Editor-in-Chief who is the mediator or cooperates with the author about presenting paper for publication, may explain to other author that he has already received the same paper for publication, or is being prepared for publication). Since making decision on the papers, the Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board may disclose or publish the titles of the manuscripts and the surnames of the authors of the papers accepted for publication, but only to the extent permitted by the author / authors. In other cases, additional permission is required from the author/authors.
5. The Editor-in-Chief respects the intellectual independence of authors.
6. The editorial responsibility and authority of a scientific paper, the author of which is the editor-in-chief itself and which is presented for publication in the journal, is transferred to another qualified person, such as a member of the editorial board of the same collection. Any kind of revision of the paper submitted by the Editor-in-Chief by himself is considered as an abuse of the work condition /conflict of interest and is thus unjustified.
7. Without the permission of the author of the paper submitted for publication, the information, arguments and explanations contained in the paper may not be used by the Editor-in-Chief for his own research purposes, which are not published. However, if such information indicates that this or that research by the editor is likely to be unfavorable, the editor-in-chief is ethically empowered to cease working. If the paper is so closely related to the editor's past or current research that it causes a conflict of interest, the Editor-in-Chief is obligated to delegate editorial responsibility for the paper to another qualified person. In some cases, it may be necessary to keep the author informed of the editor's research and plans in the field.
8. If the Editor-in-Chief has been presented with the fact that the main essence or conclusions of the report published in the Collection are erroneous, the Editor-in-Chief shall ensure publication of the report indicating the error and ways for its correction as far as possible. The report can be written by the person who first noticed the error or the original author.
9. The author may request the Editor-in-Chief not to consult this or that reviewer during the review of his/her paper. However, the Editor-in-Chief may refer to one or more of the named reviewers if he or she deems that his or her opinion is necessarily relevant to the proper evaluation of the paper. Such a thing could happen, for example, when a scholarly paper is in clear discrepancy with a potential reviewer's previous work.

b. Ethical Norms for the Editorial Board of the Collection of Scientific Papers

1. The Editorial Board must carry out its activities in an honest and conscientious manner, which generates the trust of the user and serves as the main basis for the evaluation of the collection;
2. The Editorial Board makes the decision to publish the paper taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers, however, the recommendation does not provide a full guarantee for the publication of the paper, as the final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board led by Editor-in-Chief;
3. The Editorial Board makes the decision of the paper’s publication on the basis of the scientific and intellectual value of the work without regard to the author's race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship and political views;
4. The Editorial Board shall not use information, data or interpret the submitted article unless its publication or the author author gives its permission;
5. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief shall present reasoned and convincing evidence established by the Editorial Board regarding the content and conclusions of the paper.

c.  Ethical Norms for Authors

Authors of scientific papers are required to adhere to the following ethical guidelines. In case of violation of ethical norms, the Editor-in-Chief may impose fines, which include, among other sanctions, the abolition of publishing privilege.

1. The main duty of the author is to present an accurate report of the conducted research and an objective review, which describes the importance of the conducted research.
2. The author should understand that the space allocated for the publication of a scientific paper in the collection of scientific papers is a valuable resource and a significant expense has been incurred on it. Thus, the author is required to use it wisely and economically.
3. The first report of the research should provide sufficient data and references to widely available sources of information to enable the author's colleagues to refer to the paper.
4. The author should refer to the publications that have significantly defined the content of the paper and which contain references to all past papers that help the reader better understand the research. Citation of the paper that is not indicated in the present study should be kept to a minimum. This does not apply to reviews. The author is obliged to conduct an information search (literature review), to find and indicate the source publications in which the work related to the given work is given. Regarding the deficient material used in the paper, an appropriate citation is made with reference to the sources, if the material is provided not by the author but by another person.
5. Separation of scientific research reports is not recommended. A researcher who has carried out large-scale work on a system or group of research-related systems should submit a publication in such a way that each report provides a comprehensive overview of each specific aspect of the general research. A segregated account takes up more space than needed in the pages of a journal and complicates the search for literature (information retrieval). Readers' perception of information is facilitated when reports of relevant studies are published in the same journal or in only a few journals.
6. The author should indicate the source of all cited information, except for well-known/recognized information. The use and reference of information obtained through private channels in the author's work, such as informal conversations, correspondence and discussions with third parties, is not allowed without the special permission of the researcher with whom the information was obtained. The same rules apply to information obtained from such confidential services as reviewing the paper and submitting questionnaires.
7. Experimental or theoretical research may justify criticism of another scholarly work and, in some cases, even harsh criticism. If necessary, such critical assessments may also be indicated in published papers. However, personal criticism is completely unacceptable.
8. The co-authors of the paper should be persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the given paper and who, together with others, are responsible and accountable for the results of the research. Other contributions made by the co-authors to this work are indicated in the footnote or in the "Thanksgiving" section. The connection of the administrative nature with the research does not itself imply the co-authorship of the given person (however, in case of special administrative assistance it is recommended to express gratitude). Dead persons who meet the criteria for recognition as co-authors are listed as co-authors, and a notice of their death (namely, date of death) is given in the footnote. The author and co-author are not mentioned by fictional name. The author who submits the paper for publication is responsible for the fact that the co-authors cited by him are indeed co-authors of the paper and no person who is not a co-author is mentioned as a co-author by the author. The author submitting the work is obliged to send a copy of the work to all living co-authors and obtain the co-author's consent to the co-authorship of the work.

d.  Ethical Norms for the Reviewers of the Collection of Scientific Papers

1. As the review of a scientific paper is an important step in the process of publication and thus in the optimal use of the scientific method, every researcher is obliged to use the services of a reviewer.
2. The selected reviewer, who considers that he/she does not have adequate qualifications to evaluate the scientific paper submitted to him/her, is obliged to return the paper to the Editor immediately.
3. The reviewer of a scientific paper is obliged to evaluate objectively and in accordance with high scientific and literary standards the quality of the paper, the experimental and theoretical work presented in it, its explanation (interpretation) and description. The reviewer is obliged to respect the intellectual independence of the author.
4. The reviewer should pay the attention to the issue of avoiding conflicts of interest, if the scientific paper under revision is closely related to the paper developed by the reviewer or published by the reviewer. In case of reasonable doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the paper without peer review and warn the editor of the impending conflict of interest or bias or, instead, the reviewer may submit a signed review outlining the reviewer 's interest. In this case the reviewer agrees to have such a review submitted to the author.
5. The reviewer is obliged to treat the submitted paper as a confidential document, the display and discussion of which is not allowed with other persons, except the persons to whom the reviewer applies for specific consultations. In such a case, the names of the consultants should be communicated to the editor.
6. The reviewer should explain and substantiate his/her opinions in order to be understandable to the editor and the authors on the basis of which the reviewer made his/her conclusions. The statement that this or that observation, conclusion or argument has already been made in the past must be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Unsubstantiated evidence from reviewers (or controversial authors) is not taken into account.
7. The reviewer should pay attention to the authors reference to the relevant papers of other sciences and remember that the claim that the reviewer's own research was insufficiently cited may be motivated by selfishness. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities between the paper submitted for consideration and the paper published or, at the same time, the paper submitted for publication in another journal.
8. The reviewer is obliged to promptly, in compliance with the set deadlines, perform the work assigned to him/her and submit a report in a timely manner. If the reviewer receives the scientific paper at such a time that it is impossible to review the paper promptly in the given circumstances, the reviewer is obliged to immediately return the paper to the editor or notify the editor of the expected delay and agree to extend the review.
9. Without the permission of the author of the scientific paper, the reviewer may not use or disclose the information, arguments and explanations in the paper that are not published. However, if such information indicates that the research by the reviewer is likely to be unfavorable, the reviewer is ethically empowered to cease working. In some cases, it may be necessary for the reviewer to notify the author of the reviewer's plans in the field and to send a copy of such notice to the editor.
10. Criticism of the reviewer may be used in the review of the submitted paper, in some cases even harsh criticism. If necessary, such critical assessments may be published in conjunction with the papers. However, personal criticism is completely unacceptable.