Ethics of publication

The Journal Editorial Board is guided to the rules and principles of the international organization CommitteeonPublicationEthics (COPE), its policy is based on recommendations of BudapestOpenAccessInitiative (BOAI).

Articles published in the UIPA Scientific Journal should be the result of authors’ scientific research, the contribution to science development and provide continuity of scientific views. Within this framework the editorial board sets ethical behaviour standards for all members involved in publication process.




  1. The standard of authorship

Authorship should be limited only to those who have made a significant contribution to the results of the research study (development of the concept, scientific ideas, etc.). The authors, who submit their manuscripts to the editorial board, must ensure that they have all the co-authors listed and that the latest have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Articles submitted by postgraduate students must have a recommendation letter from the scientific advisor if the latest is not a co-author of the article.

  1. The standard of once-only submission (inadmissibility of concurrent submission/publication).

Authors must not submit to the editorial board manuscripts which have previously been published elsewhere. One and the same manuscript must never be concurrently submitted to the editorial boards of several journals.

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and unacceptable.

  1. The standard of data access and retention

Authors are obliged to submit the raw data of their study at the request of the editorial staff and must be prepared to make the data publicly available. Following publication, the data must be retained for a reasonable period of time in order to be available promptly and completely.

  1. The standard of originality and inadmissibility of plagiarism

Authors should submit to the editorial board an entirely original article. If the author has used works of others or included in his/her article excerpts from the works of others (i.e. cited them), appropriate references must be provided (quotation marks, footnotes to the source of the citation, indication of the original source in the reference list given at the end to the article).

Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable.

  1. The standard of sourcesacknowledgement

Authors should correctly indicate in the reference list scientific and other sources of information that they have used while doing research and which have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

It is obligatory to reference sources which are mentioned in the footnotes in the text of the manuscript. Information obtained from informal (private) sources (conversations, correspondence, discussions with third parties, etc.) should not be used.

  1. The standard of error correction in published works

If the author discovers a serious error or inaccuracy in the article that has already been published, he/she must immediately notify the editorial board and assist them in correcting the error.

 If the editor finds out about an error from third parties, the author must immediately correct the error or provide the proof of its absence.


Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers


The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the author's article in order to objectively evaluate the quality of the submitted paper and determine its level of compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. When evaluating the article, the reviewer should be impartial and adhere to the following principles:

  1. An expert evaluation should help the author to improve the quality of the text of the article, and the editor to make a publication decision.
  2. The reviewer, who does not consider him-/herself to be a specialist in the subject area of ​​the article or who knows that he/she will not be able to submit a review on the article in a timely manner, must notify the editor and refuse to review.
  3. The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the manuscript submitted for review. This is also applicable to scientific advisors of postgraduate students doing a degree and/or to the staff members of the department where the author works.
  4. Any manuscript received by an expert from the editorial board for a review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with other persons, except for the indicated persons.
  5. The reviewer must express his/her opinion clearly and reasonably.
  6. The reviewer should point out previously published articles that are relevant to the reviewed article and not cited by the author. Any statement in the review about the fact that some observations, conclusions, or arguments from the article under consideration have already been met in other sources should be accompanied by the corresponding citation and bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or partial coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other previously published papers.
  7. If the reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship or data falsification, he/she must apply to the editorial board for a collective review of the author's article.
  8. The reviewer must provide an objective conclusion on whether the author has sufficiently referenced previously published works which are relevant to the topic of the submitted piece of writing.
  9. Acting in accordance with the principle of confidentiality, the reviewer should not use for his/her personal advantage unpublished information or ideas contained in a manuscript submitted for review.
  10. The reviewer must disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected with the submitted work.


Principles of Professional Ethics in the Editorial Board Work

Theeditorial boardand the members of editorial collegiumthat are responsible for publishing the submitted manuscripts, areguided by the following basic principles:


1.Making decision on publication the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal follows authenticity of the given data and scientific meaningfulness of the examined work.

  1. The editor-in-chief must not have own interests in relation to the articles, that he/she declines or accepts.
  2. The editor-in-chief of the journal bears responsibility for deciding which of the submitted articles will be accepted for publication, and which ones are declined. Thus he/she follows politics of the journal and adheres to legal principles, warning violation of copyrights and plagiarism.
  3. The editor-in-chief estimates the submitted article exceptionally on her scientific maintenance, irrespective of racial belonging of authors, sex, sexual orientation, religious persuasions, nationality, citizenship, origin, social state or political looks.
  4. The editor-in-chief, the employees of the editorial board group and the members of editorial collegium of the journal, must not report information about the article presented in the journal to nobody, except an author(s), appointed and potential reviewers, other employees of release and (at a necessity) publisher.
  5. The unpublished data got from the submitted manuscripts to consideration must not be used by the editor-in-chief, the employees of release, the members of the editorial board group or editorial collegium for the personal aims or passed to the third persons (without the written consent).
  6. The editor-in-chief must not admit the submitted article to the publication, if there are enough grounds to consider that it is plagiarism.
  7. In case of acceptance the article to the publication, it is placed in open access and the copyrights are kept after authors.
  8. The editor-in-chief together with a publisher must not abandon without an answer the claims that touch the considered manuscripts or published materials. At the exposure of conflict situation, they must accept all necessary measures for proceeding in the broken rights, and at the exposure of errors - to promote publication of corrections or refutations.
  9. The editor-in-chief, the employees of release or the editorial board group of the journal, must provide confidentiality of the names and other information about reviewers. If it is necessary, making decision on bringing in of a new reviewer, the last can be familiar with the names of previous reviewers.


Principles of Professional Ethics in Publisher Activity


A publisher bears responsibility for promulgation of authorial works, adhering to such fundamental principles and procedures:


  1. To assist implementation of ethic duties a release, the editorial board group, the editorial collegium, the reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.
  2. To give support to the editors of the journal in consideration of claims against the ethic aspects of the published materials and to help to co-operate with other journals and/or publishers, if it assists implementation of the editors’ duties.
  3. To adhere the position, that activity of the journal is not a commercial project and does not have the purpose to get profit.
  4. To assist the process of publication of corrections, elucidations, refutations and apologies, when it is necessary.
  5. To give the releases of the journal possibility to recall publications that contain plagiarism and unreliable data.