Publishing Ethics

1. Introduction

1.1. The scientific and practical peer-reviewed journal «Bulletin of Medical Science» in its editorial policy follows the principles of the integrity of publications in scientific journals, the relevant provisions of authoritative international associations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP), establishing ethical standards for all parties involved in the publication (authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and the scientific community). The journal, with the help of comprehensive, objective and honest review, tends to select for publication only those materials related to scientific research of the highest quality.

1.2. The publisher of the journal «Bulletin of Medical Science», the Altai State Medical University, does not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all current recommendations in the published work.

1.3. The publisher undertakes to supervise scientific materials.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Decision on publication

The Editor of «Bulletin of Medical Science» is responsible for deciding if the article submitted to the journal should be published, often working in cooperation with the relevant scientific society. The validation of the work in question and its scientific importance must always underlie such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the «Bulletin of Medical Science» journal’s editorial board and constrained by valid legal requirements in respect of libel, copyright infringement, legality, and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or scientific society officials) in making this decision on publication.

2.2. Decency

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff of «Bulletin of Medical Science» must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4. Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interests

2.4.1. Unpublished materials obtained from a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without a written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Experts (reviewers) and editors of special issues should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead of self-reviewing and making a decision) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the paper.

2.5. Supervision of the published manuscripts

The editor who presented with convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should inform the publisher (and/or relevant scientific society) to promote the prompt note of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note relevant to the situation.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in research

The editor in cooperation with the publisher (or scientific society) should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints concern a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and publishing houses.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, through the corresponding communications with the author and may also assist the author in improving the paper quality. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific approach. The Editorial Board of the journal «Bulletin of Medical Science» shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of «Bulletin of Medical Science» and excuse themselves from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4. Standard requirements and objectivity

A reviewer should give an objective evaluation. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement (an observation, conclusion, or argument) that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper that is in the scientific competence of the reviewer.

3.6. Policy of disclosure and conflict of interests

3.6.1. Unpublished materials obtained from a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected with the submitted papers.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Standard requirements to manuscripts

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered to be unethical and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and research reports should also be accurate and objective; the author’s views should be clearly expressed.

4.2. Data access and storage

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data referring to the paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any case be prepared to keep such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure the Editorial Board of the journal that they have submitted an entirely original work and if the authors have used the work and/or statements of other authors, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from presenting someone else’s paper as the author’s own paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of someone else’s paper (without identifying the authorship), to claiming the rights for the results of research carried out by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is considered to be unethical and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

4.4.1. In general, an author should not publish manuscripts dealing with essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is considered to be unethical and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit a previously published paper to another journal for consideration.

4.4.3. Publication of a certain kind of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must present the same data and interpretation of the primary document.

The primary references must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detailed information on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at

4.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of other authors must always be done. Authors should refer to publications that are significant for the submitted work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained from the confidential sources, such as evaluating manuscripts or giving grants, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work dealing with these confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of the paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. When the participants of the study made an essential contribution to a certain aspect of the research project, they must be acknowledged as contributors.

4.6.2. The author should ensure that all the participants who have considerably contributed to the research are listed as co-authors and those who have not participated in the study are not presented as co-authors, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7. Risks, human and animal subjects of the study

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual risks inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all stages of the study were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that the informed consent was obtained from the human subject involved. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interests

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interests that might be thought to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interests which should be disclosed include employment, counseling, stock ownership, fees, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interests should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «Bulletin of Medical Science» journal and cooperate with the Publisher to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains significant errors, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The Publisher of the journal «Bulletin of Medical Science», the Altai State Medical University, follows the principles and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties according to the adopted guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential benefit from advertising or reprint revenue has no impact on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher supports «Bulletin of Medical Science» journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and helps communicate with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. The Publisher promotes the proper practice of carrying out research and introduces professional standards to improve ethical recommendations, procedures of retractions and error corrections.

5.4. The Publisher provides relevant specialized legal support (review and counsel) if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher and files from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and ASEP.