Reviewer publication ethics

The reviewer performs a scientific evaluation of submitted materials in an impartial and professional manner, in accordance with the following principles:

The manuscript received for review is treated as a confidential document. It must not be shared, discussed, or distributed to third parties without explicit authorization from the editorial board.
The reviewer provides an objective, balanced, and well-reasoned evaluation of the research results presented in the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is strictly unacceptable.
Unpublished data obtained through the peer review process must not be used by the reviewer for personal benefit or research.
If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the submitted work, or unable to remain objective—for instance, due to a conflict of interest with the author(s) or their institution—they must notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.

Plagiarism and ethical misconduct

The editorial board adheres to the highest standards of scientific publication ethics and is committed to protecting the reputation of authors. Allegations of plagiarism are taken very seriously, as such accusations can have a significant negative impact on a researcher’s professional standing.

In cases involving suspected plagiarism, the editorial board follows a clear and structured procedure designed to investigate and respond appropriately to the claims.

To ensure fairness and objectivity, the editorial board conducts a thorough review of each case, giving all parties involved the opportunity to present evidence and explanations. Before any decision is made, the editorial board seeks to obtain accurate and complete information from the authors of the disputed work or from the copyright holders.

At the same time, the editorial board reserves the right not to consider accusations if the complainant: