Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit is on the view that ethicas aspects of publication are an important part of the editorial work and of the reviewing process. Prevention of inappropriate activities, such as dissimulation, plagiarism, has been a responsibility of any author, editor, reviewer, publisher and institution that take part in a publication process.
Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to ensure ethics and quality in publication.
National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit as a publisher of “Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit” takes its duties to guarantee serious approach to all stages of publishing and recognizes the responsibilities. Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.
Editorial policy and ethical standarts of the collection of scientific papers "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit".
In the "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit" are published materials, which have a great scientific, theoretical and practical importance and are prepared at a high scientific level as the result of scientific researches.
Editorial policy of the collection of scientific papers "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit" is based on the recommendations of the Ethics Committee of publications (Committee on Publication Ethics) and the Ethics Codex of the scientist of Ukraine.
1. Ethics of Publications
1.1. To reviewing are involved reputable scientists and trainees in the field of the article.
The articles submitted for publication go through the "double-blind "review and plagiarism test.
1.3. To reviewing are accepted scientific articles issued in full compliance with the materials which are submitted by the authors to periodicals. To determine the degree of compliance with these requirements, all articles and related materials are passing throw the initial control. In the case of observations during the initial control, article and other materials are returned to the author to correct deficiencies that are found.
1.4. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors; it is carried out by two reviewers. For review, the encoded article is provided to the reviewer, who is the leading specialist on the topic of the article.
1.5. Reviewer, who received coded article fills the typical form and selects one of the following recommendations - recommended for publication; recommended revision; not recommended for publication.
1.6. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are the intellectual property of authors and the information placed in the manuscript, is not subjected to disclosure. Reviewers can not use the data of their works before publication in their own interests.
1.7. In case of a negative conclusion (no recommendation for publication or determination of the need for revision of the article) reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the decision.
1.8. Further work with the article, which is accepted for publication, is made by apparatus of responsible for the formation of a periodical unit according to the technological process of preparing the collection.
1.9. The decision of the editorial board of the working group is told to the author (-s) of an article. If revision is necessary , to author (-s) also are sent text of review containing recommendations for revision of the article. Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by editors of collection.
1.10. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative opinion of reviewer an article becomes rejected and not subjected for further reviewing.
1.11. Revision does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
2. Ethical obligations of authors
2.1. The author takes full responsibility for the content of the article.
2.2. The author must correctly indicate the sources used in his work if they were not obtained by the author himself.
2.3. Plagiarism is illegal.
2.4. Co-authors of the article must be persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results.
3. Ethical commitment of reviewer
3.1.Reviewer should objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and presentation, and to consider whether the work is done well enough for high scientific and literary standards.
3.2. The reviewer must adequately explain and argue their opinions so that associate editor and the author (s) could understand on what are based on his observations.
3.3. The reviewer shall provide the review in time.