Editorial board of the periodical «Current Aspects of Military Medicine» adheres to the ethical principles developed by The Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and approved by the International Committee of Medical Editors (ICMJE).
The ethical responsibilities of the editors, authors and reviewers of the periodical are based on the current policy and recommendations of Elsevier in the field of publishing ethics in order to improve the quality of the publication, ensure copyright of intellectual property and exclude the possibility of misuse of copyrighted materials.
Ethical responsibilities of the editorial board and editors
The decision to publish an article is made on the basis of checking the reliability of the submitted data and the importance of the work for researchers and readers. The editor-in-chief (scientific editor) should not have any conflict of interest regarding the articles he rejects or accepts. The editor-in-chief of the periodical is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the collection are accepted for publication, and which are rejected. At the same time, he is guided by the periodical policy, and such legal requirements as non-defamation, plagiarism and copyright infringement. The editor-in-chief of the periodical may consult with members of the editorial board and reviewers when deciding on publication.
The editor-in-chief should evaluate the manuscript solely on its scientific content, regardless of race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship or political opinion of the authors of the manuscript.
The editor-in-chief, scientific editor, members of the editorial board of the periodical should not disclose any information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors of the article, potential reviewers and consultants of the editorial board, as well as the publisher.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the editor-in-chief, scientific editor, members of the editorial board for personal purposes or passed on to third parties (without the written permission of the author).
The editor-in-chief should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
The article, in case of acceptance for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyright is retained by the authors.
Appeal of violation of ethical policy
Editors of the periodical resolve conflict situations that arise in the process of work, and use all available means to resolve them.
Editors of the periodical publish information on corrections, rebuttals, and responses to articles if necessary.
Ethical responsibilities of authors
Authors should be aware that they are personally responsible for the text of the manuscript provided.
Authors of manuscripts of original research must provide an accurate report on the work done and reliable results of the research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain enough detailed information and references so that other researchers can repeat it. Deliberately false, distorted or falsified statements are equated with unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Access and save data
Authors may be asked to provide input for their work for expert evaluation, and should be prepared to make this input publicly available if possible. These data must be kept for 3 years after the publication of the article
Originality and plagiarism
The authors must ensure that the results of the study presented in the manuscript are completely original work. In the case of using fragments of other authors` works and / or borrowing the statements of other authors, this fact should be appropriately noted by reference or indicated in the text of the article. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unquoted quotations, paraphrasing, or misappropriation of someone else's research, is unethical and unacceptable. Articles that are a compilation of materials previously published by other authors, without their creative processing and author's reviewing will not accepted by the periodical Editorial Board for publication. For all submitted materials, the level of uniqueness of the text is determined by the Advego Plagiatus program.
Numerous, duplicate or simultaneous publications
As a rule, authors should not publish material describing the same study in more than one article. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one collection is unethical and unacceptable.
The author should not submit an article already published in another collection for consideration. Sometimes it is permissible to publish articles in more than one collection in another form (for example, translation), but subject to the requirements: the authors and editors of the published work must agree to republish, which must be identical in the original document. In the case of re-publication, reference should be made to a previously published article and what is the significant difference between the new work and the previous one.
Recognition of sources
Authors should recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of research or determined the nature of the presented scientific work. In particular, the article should contain bibliographic references to publications that were relevant during the research. All sources must be disclosed. Information obtained in the course of confidential activities, such as the review of manuscripts or grant applications, should not be used without the written permission of the author of the information involved in such confidential activities.
Authorship of the work
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, planning, or interpretation of research results. The correct composition of the list of co-authors of the work should be guaranteed. Among the co-authors of the article it is necessary to indicate all persons who have made a significant intellectual contribution to its concept, structure, as well as to the work or interpretation of the results of the work. Other people who have been involved in some aspects of the work should be thanked. The author must also ensure that all co-authors are familiar with the final version of the article, approve it and agree with its submission for publication. All authors mentioned in the article are publicly responsible for the content of the article. If the article is a multidisciplinary work, the co-authors may be responsible for their personal contribution, leaving collective responsibility for the overall result. Co-authors should not include individuals who did not participate in the study.
Potential hazards and uses of humans or animals
Manuscripts containing materials on human research should contain information on their compliance with the ethical standards of ethics committees for biomedical research, the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association on the ethical principles of human medical research, European Community Directive 86/609 on participation of people in medical and biological research, as well as the order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine № 690 from 23.09.2009 «On approval of the procedure for clinical trials of drugs and examination of clinical trial materials and the Standard Regulations on Ethics Commissions».
If the work involves chemicals, hazardous procedures or equipment, the use of which may lead to unacceptable risks, the author must clearly state this in the manuscript. If an animal or human study has been conducted, the author must include in the manuscript a statement that all procedures have been performed in accordance with applicable law and official instructions and approved by the relevant committee of the institution / organization where the study was conducted. In their manuscript, the authors must provide a separate statement stating that permission has been obtained for human experiments.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Authors in their manuscripts must indicate all sources of funding for the work, declare possible conflicts of interest that may affect the results of the study, their interpretation, as well as the judgments of reviewers. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed are: employment, consulting, shareholder ownership, payment of fees, payment of testimony, patent application or registration, grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be known at the time of submission.
Fundamental errors in published works
In case of significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, authors should immediately notify the editors of the periodical and make a joint decision to recognize the error and / or correct it as soon as possible. If the editors of the periodical learn from a third party that the published work contains significant errors, the author is obliged to correct them immediately, or provide the editors with evidence of the correctness of the information provided by him.
Ethical responsibilities of reviewers
According to the ethical principles of COPE, ICMJE and Elsevier recommendations in the field of publishing ethics, all scholars who wish to publish articles have a moral obligation to participate in the review. Potential reviewers should provide accurate personal and professional information that objectively reflects their experience and can be confirmed, as well as accurate contact information.
Reviewers in their work should be guided by COPE ethical standards for reviewers (listed below).
To ensure the integrity of the review process, reviewers should not discuss the manuscript without the special permission of the editor. Reviewers may invite one or two colleagues for an opinion on the peer-reviewed material only with the permission of the editor. Reviewers should not copy or use the information contained in the manuscript for any purpose, including their own research.
The reviewer must be objective. All comments must be supported by appropriate arguments.
The expert assessment must be provided within a reasonable time. If the reviewer considers himself qualified to perform such work, he/she must agree to perform it within the proposed and agreed time. If there are obstacles and it is impossible to perform the review in time, the reviewer must notify the editor. A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert on the subject of the article or knows that its prompt review is impossible, should notify the editor-in-chief and refuse to review.
Recognition of sources
The reviewer should pay attention to the absence of references to already published works or other previously published data.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished information provided in the manuscript should not be used in any work of the reviewer without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas that come up during the review should be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit.
The reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any authors or organizations relevant to the article.