Ethics
EDITORIAL ETHICS
The editors of the journal are guided by ethical principles:
▪ carries out an independent policy of selection and publication of materials of scientific and practical research;
▪ guarantees the compliance of published materials with accepted international standards and ethical principles;
▪ carries out work to improve the journal to meet the needs of readers and authors to the maximum;
▪ purposefully cooperates with authors and reviewers to ensure the high quality of published material;
▪ the acceptance or rejection of a work for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the study, taking into account the intellectual content, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political opinion of the author;
▪ provides publication of materials reflecting different scientific points of view, reserving the right to reduce published materials, editorial changes, and their adaptation to the headings of the journal;
▪ admits mistakes and, if necessary, publishes corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies.
The editor-in-chief of the Journal of New Medical Technologies is responsible for making a decision on the publication of the works submitted to the editors of the journal, determining the reliability and importance of the work for researchers and readers, compliance with legal requirements (copyright infringement, plagiarism, slander). When making a decision on publication, the editor-in-chief consults with members of the editorial board or reviewers.
The information contained in the published article should not be used in any own work of members of the editorial board or editorial board without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or scientific ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
ETHICS OF REVIEW
Peer review contributes to the decision of the editor-in-chief to publish the work, and can also help the author to improve his work.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the author has the right to send a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. If the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the reasonable comments and recommendations of the reviewers, the article may be rejected from further consideration.
Efficiency
A reviewer who is aware of his incompetence to review a scientific research manuscript or knows that its prompt review is impossible should exclude himself from the review process by notifying the editor-in-chief.
Confidentiality
The peer-reviewed manuscript should be considered a confidential document and should not be discussed with other persons except those authorized by the editor-in-chief.
Objectivity standards
Reviews must be carried out objectively, personal attacks on the author are unacceptable. The point of view of the reviewer should be reasonable and clear.
Source recognition
If a significant similarity or partial coincidence is found between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work known personally to the reviewer, he informs the editor-in-chief about this.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished information in a peer-reviewed article cannot be used in the reviewer's own scientific work without the written permission of the author, and confidential information must be kept secret and not used for personal interests.
The reviewer's refusal to participate in the review is appropriate if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the article.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors of the article guarantee the writing of the original work, and in the case of using the work and / or excerpts from the texts of other authors, this is appropriately marked with a link or indication in the text.
The forms of plagiarism are manifold: presenting someone else's work as one's own, copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work without citing the source, claiming one's rights to the results obtained in studies performed by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable in publishing.
Submitting the same manuscript or already published article to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable for publication. Articles that violate the ethics of scientific publications may be retracted after publication.
Authorship of the work
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the concept, planning, execution, or interpretation of the described study.
If any person was involved in any significant part of the project, then he should be acknowledged, or he should be included in the list of co-authors.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
All authors are required to disclose in their manuscript any significant conflict of interest that could be construed as affecting the results of the evaluation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Errors in published works
If the author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, then he is obliged to immediately notify the editor-in-chief of the journal about this and cooperate with him in order to publish a refutation or correction of the article. If the editor-in-chief learns from a third party the fact of a significant error, then the author is obliged to urgently refute or correct the article, or provide the editor-in-chief with evidence of the correctness of the published work.
Reliability of the presented results
The authors are responsible for the content of the publication, the reliability of the results presented in the article. Authors should check references to cited works.
In the manuscript submitted to the editorial office, the authors are required to indicate the position and organization in which the work was performed and in the framework of which scientific programs the research was carried out.