Reviewer publication ethics

The reviewer conducts scientific expertise of the author's materials, which is impartial and based on the following principles:

• The manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document, which cannot be shared for review or discussion with third parties who do not have permission from the editorial board.
• The reviewer provides an objective and reasoned evaluation of the research results presented. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
• Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts under consideration are not used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
• A reviewer who believes they lack sufficient qualifications to assess the work or cannot be objective, for example, due to a conflict of interest with the author or the organization, must inform the editor and request to be excluded from the review process of the work.

The editorial board adheres to scientific ethics standards, protecting the reputation of authors and taking plagiarism cases seriously, based on the understanding that accusations of plagiarism negatively affect the career of the researcher. In the event of such situations, a system of procedures is in place to address potential plagiarism accusations.

To ensure objectivity, the editorial board carefully examines each case and considers the arguments of all parties involved. Before taking further actions, the editorial board strives to obtain the most accurate information from the authors of the disputed publication or the copyright holders and studies it.

At the same time, the editorial board reserves the right not to respond to plagiarism accusations if the accuser provides false personal information (e.g., using a fictitious name) or acts in an unethical or threatening manner. The editorial board is not obligated to discuss alleged plagiarism cases with individuals who are not directly related to the matter.