Published by National Transport University a scientific and technical journal “The National Transport University Bulletin” maintains a certain level of requirements for selection and accepting of papers submitted to the editorial office. These norms are determined by the scientific directions of the journal, which are defined by Certificate of the state registration and quality standards for scientific studies and their presentation accepted in the scientific community.
During development of editorial policy statutes for a scientific and technical journal “The National Transport University Bulletin” the editorial board was guided by the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also foreign and Ukrainian professional communities, scientific organizations and editorial departments work experience.
An essential feature of the professional scientific community is the code adoption by scientists and experts that establishes the basic rules of conduct and responsibilities of the community members relative to each other and to society. Such a code is determined by the desire to maximize the benefits for the professional community and limit actions, that might redound to vested interests of individuals, as well as to ensure the right of each author for intellectual property.
In view of the foregoing, journal editorial board represents the list of ethical principles, which the person should be guided in case of participating in the publication of research results in mining, allied branches of industry and other areas referential to the remit of the journal (editors, authors and reviewers).
The editorial board believes that the following rules are conscious and as approved by a majority of qualified researchers, they could provide substantial assistance to students, postgraduates and young scientists if they are newcomers to research activities to a certain extent. Established scientists might welcome the opportunity of returning to issues if they have great importance to scientific practice.
Ethical Obligations for Editors
1. All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the paper or return it for further revision. The author is obliged to amend the paper in according to the remarks of the reviewers and the editorial board.
2. The editor should considerate all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). At the same time, the editor might take into account relationships of a manuscript under consideration to others previously offered by the same author(s).
3. The editor should consider manuscript submitted for publication without delays.
4. The whole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of an article rests with the editor. Responsible and reasonable approach to the duty requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, Doctor of Science of required specialty, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication. However, manuscripts might be rejected without external review if considered by the editors to be inappropriate for remit of the journal.
5. The editor and members of the editorial board should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. After a positive decision has been made about a manuscript, it should be published in the journal and posted on relevant electronic resources.
6. It is acceptable to spread articles published in the journal or quotations over the Internet with precondition of giving references and links to the primary source. Publication and / or distribution of materials from the journal by third parties or organizations in print and electronic media are prohibited.
7. According to the International Copyright Law and the Electronic Media Rights of Authors and Publishers, copying of materials published in electronic journal in full or in part is not allowed without the prior written permission of author(s) and Editors. In case of use of the published materials in context of other documents, references to the primary source are required.
8. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
9. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to other qualified person.
10. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author. However, if such information indicates that some of the editor’s own research is unlikely to be profitable, the editor could ethically discontinue the work. When a manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of an editor as to create a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript.
11. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a report published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by any independent author.
12. The author might request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript. This might be the case, for example, when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.
Ethical Obligations for Authors
1. Author’s main responsibility is to render an accurate account of the performed research as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
2. Whole responsibility for content of papers and for the fact of publication rests with authors. The editors do not bear responsibility for probable damage caused by publication of a manuscript to authors and / or third parties. The editors have the right to withdraw the already published paper in case somebody's rights or generally accepted norms have been violated. The editors should inform the author who has submitted the paper; the person who gave recommendations; and representatives of organization, where the research was held, about the fact of withdrawal.
3. An author should be aware that journal space is a limited resource and should be used wisely and economically.
4. A primary research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. When requested, the authors should make a reasonable effort to provide samples of unusual materials unavailable elsewhere, with appropriate material transfer agreements to restrict the field of use of the materials so as to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
5. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non author.
6. Any dangerous manifestations and risks, which are related to the study, should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.
7. Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study.
8. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such.
9. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (statement) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.
10. An author should identify the source of all quoted or offered information clearly, with the exception of well-known facts. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should be treated similarly.
11. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes serve as the basis for criticizing of another scientist’s study. When appropriate, such criticism may be offered in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.
12. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the reported work and who share responsibility for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the research in itself is not a basis for qualification a person as co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet a requirement for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. Fictitious names might be not listed as an author or co-author. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons only who meet a requirement for inclusion as co-authors. In case the paper was written by several authors, one of the authors who sends the contact details, documents and correspondences with the editors, takes responsibility for the consent of the other authors of the article for its publication in the journal.
13. The authors should reveal to the editor any potential conflict of interest, for example, consulting or financial interests of any company that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the authors’ manuscript. The authors must guarantee the absence of contractual relationships or property considerations which can affect on the results described by the manuscript.
Ethical Obligations for Reviewers
1. Inasmuch as manuscripts reviewing is an essential step in the publication process, as much as in implementing of scientific method itself, every scholar is required to perform a certain amount of reviewing work.
2. If the chosen reviewer is not sure that his qualification corresponds to the level of presented in the manuscript research, he / she must immediately give the manuscript back.
3. The reviewer must evaluate manuscript quality, supplied experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation open-mindedly as well as take into account how far the paper corresponds to high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect authors’ intellectual independence.
4. The reviewer should consider the possibility of competing interests in cases the manuscript is closely related to the current or published reviewer’s study. In case of doubt, the reviewer have to give the manuscript immediately back without a review, point at a conflict of interest.
5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript if he has personal or professional relationships with a paper’s author or a co-author and if these relationships might have an impact on the estimation about manuscript.
6. The reviewer must deal with a received for review manuscript as with a confidential document. A manuscript should not be shown to others persons or discuss it with other colleagues except in some special cases if the reviewer needs someone special advice.
7. Reviewers have to explain adequately and set forth their estimations to help editors and authors understand what their remarks are based on. Any statement that the watching, conclusion or argument have already been published should be accompanied by corresponding references.
8. The reviewer should point to any cases of insufficient citations by the authors of the of other scholars’ studies that are directly related to the being reviewed paper; it should be noted that remarks on insufficient citation of reviewer’s own research studies may look up biased. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any other published article or any other manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.
9. The reviewer must provide a referee report by the due date.
10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript without the author’s consent and knowledge. However, in case this information points out some reviewer's own research might be futile, such study termination by the reviewer is not contrary to ethical standards.