Publication Ethics

The Editorial Board of the scientific periodical online journal BENEFICIUM adheres to the international standards of ethics of scientific publications, developed and approved by the Committee on publication Ethics (COPE), and takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals. The Editorial Board does its best to comply with the ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community and to prevent any violations of these standards both in its own work and in relations with participants in the process of scientific publications: authors, reviewers.

1. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board

1.1. Decision to publish

The Editor-in-Chief of the publication is personally and independently responsible for the decision to publish the scientific work. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other members of the Editorial Board during the decision on publication. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be at the heart of the decision to publish.

1.2. Decency

The Editor-in-Chief should evaluate the intellectual content of the scientific work regardless of race, gender, religious views, sexual orientation, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.

1.3. Privacy

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board of the publication are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted scientific work to all persons, except for the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers.

1.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

Unpublished data obtained from submitted scientific papers may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

The Editor-in-Chief should recuse himself from reviewing manuscripts (namely, request the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Executive Secretary or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work instead of personally making a decision) in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies and possibly other organizations associated with the scientific work.

1.5. Research engagement and collaboration

The Editor-in-Chief together with the Editorial Board shall take adequate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed or published scientific works. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the scientific work and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

2.1. Requirements for scientific works

Authors of scientific papers should provide reliable results of the work done as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the scientific work must be presented accurately. The scientific work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2.2. Originality and plagiarism

Authors should make sure that a completely original scientific work is presented, and in the case of using scientific works or statements of other authors should provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from the presentation of someone else’s scientific work as author’s to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else’s scientific works (without indicating authorship) and to claiming their own rights to the results of someone else’s research. Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

2.3. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications

In General, an Author should not publish a scientific work, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal / publication as an original publication. Submission of the same scientific work to more than one journal/publication at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

In General, the Author should not submit for consideration in another journal/other publication previously published scientific work.

2.4. Recognition of primary sources

It is always necessary to recognize the contribution of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted scientific work. Data obtained in private, such as through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the Express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the granting of grants, should not be used without the Express written permission of the authors of the work related to confidential sources.

2.5. Authorship of the publication

The Authors of the publication can be only persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the scientific work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as co-Authors. Where study participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area in a research project, they should be listed as having made a significant contribution to the study.

The Author should make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as co-Authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as co-Authors, that all co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the scientific work and agreed to submit it for publication.

2.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

All Authors are required to disclose in their research financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having an impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, royalties, expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial security. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

2.7. Significant errors in published works

If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author should inform the Editor-in-Chief of the publication and interact with the Editor-in-Chief with the aim of withdrawing the scientific work from the publication as soon as possible or correcting errors. If the Editor-in-Chief has received information from a third party that the scientific work contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

2.8. Participation in reviewing

Authors are obliged to participate in the process of reviewing scientific works received in the publication from other Authors, when making the appropriate decision by the Editor-in-Chief.

3. Duties Of Reviewers

3.1. Influence on Editorial Board decisions

Reviewing helps the Editor-in-Chief to make a decision on the publication of a scientific work and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of scientific work. Peer-review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, which is at the heart of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are obliged to do a substantial job of reviewing the scientific work.

3.2. Sense of duty

Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review scientific work, or not having enough time for quick execution of review should notify the Chief editor and ask to exclude him from the process of reviewing the relevant scientific work.

3.3. Privacy

Any scientific work received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This scientific work can not be opened and discussed with any persons who do not have the authority of the Editor-in-Chief.

3.4. Requirements for scientific work and objectivity

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should Express their opinions in a clear and reasoned manner.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published scientific works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the peer-reviewed scientific work. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier in the scientific work must be a corresponding bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the editor-in-Chief to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the considered scientific work and any other published work within the scope of the scientific competence of the Reviewer.

3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

Unpublished data obtained from submitted scientific papers may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained in the course of reviewing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Reviewers should not participate in the review of scientific papers in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.