Меню страницы
The Saryn journal and its publisher Kurmangazy Kazakh National Conservatory adhere to the ethics standards for publications and make efforts to prevent its violation.
The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject publications of articles in case of any violations of the rules listed below.
The section was prepared based on the materials of the Elsevier Scientific literature publishing house, as well as on the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
General provisions
1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes significant contribution to scientific knowledge development of the relevant field. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in publications, namely: authors, the journal’s editorial board, peer reviewers, the publisher and the scientific community for Saryn.
2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all modern recommendations in published works.
3. The publisher undertakes obligations for the strictest supervision of scientific materials received by the editorial office. The editorial ethics of the Saryn journal is based on the Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications, as well as the experience of reputable international journals and publishers.
Decision on publication
4. Editor-in-chief of the Saryn journal is personally and independently responsible for making a decision on publication. The reliability of work and its scientific significance should always be the basis for a decision on publication. Editor may be guided by the editorial policy of the Saryn journal, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
5. Editor-in-chief may confer with members of the editorial board and reviewers or other persons of the scientific community taking a decision on publication.
Confidentiality of the editorial office
6. Editor-in-chief and the editorial board of the Saryn journal are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for the authors, possible reviewers, other scientific consultants and the publisher.
Supervision of publications
7. Editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board, who have provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous, should inform the publisher (and/or the relevant scientific community) about this in order to notify as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expressions of concern and other statements relevant to the situation.
Engagement and collaboration within research
8. Editor together with the publisher take adequate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the manuscript authors and argumentation of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
9. A decision on publication, a need for revision or rejection of thematically inappropriate or improperly formatted materials is made by the editorial board, consisting of the competent specialists recognized in the scientific community.
10. The journal checks the received materials for plagiarism, thorough peer review, editing and proofreading the materials, placed in the publication in accordance with the requirements for publication of scientific literature; the editorial board reserves the right to make cuts and editorial edits, observing the principles of scientific ethics.
Requirements for manuscripts
11. Authors of an original research should provide reliable results of the work done. A manuscript, submitted to the journal, should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as an unethical behavior and therefore unacceptable in Saryn.
12. Peer reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective.
Data access and storage
13. Authors may be asked for raw data related to the manuscript for peer review by editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information, if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
14. Authors should make sure that Saryn presents a completely original text and, in case of using works or statements by other authors, should refer to them according to the rules of scientific etiquette without any plagiarism.
Originality and plagiarism
15. Authors should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable for Saryn.
16. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.
Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
17. It is always necessary to recognize the contribution of others to the original work submitted to the journal. Authors should refer to the publications that are relevant to the submitted work completion. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or in process of a discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without written permission and indication of the original source.
18. Authors of publications may be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of a concept and work plan, the execution or author’s interpretation of a research presented in the journal. Based on the above, they can be designated as co-authors.
19. Works carried out in co-authorship must be approved and approbated by each author of the final version text of the manuscript submitted to the journal.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
20. All authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work; to accurately indicate information about financial sources of support for the research results reflected in the materials.
Significant errors in published works
21. If an author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in a publication, the author must inform the editor of the Saryn journal and interact with the editor in order to correct the errors as soon as possible. If the editor has received information from a third party that a publication contains significant errors, the author is obliged to make corrections to the manuscript. Otherwise, the manuscript may be withdrawn from the publication plan of the journal or withdrawn from the publication.
Influence on decisions of the editorial board
22. Peer review helps editor-in-chief to make a decision about publication and, through appropriate interaction with authors, can help the author improve the submitted to editorial office manuscript quality. Reviewing is a necessary link in the scientific journal, which is at the heart of scientific approach. The journal’s editorial office hold the viewpoint that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are obliged to perform substantial work on reviewing the manuscript.
Sense of duty
23. Any selected reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to quickly complete the work should notify editor-in-chief of the Saryn journal and ask to exclude him from the review process of the manuscript.
Confidentiality of peer review
24. Any manuscript received for peer review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be discussed with any persons who do not have the authority to do so from editor-in-chief.
Peer reviewer's objectivity
25. The peer reviewers are obliged to give an objective assessment of scientific works submitted to them for peer review by the journal. Any personal criticism of an author is unacceptable. Peer reviewers should clearly and argumentatively express their opinions, show scientific ethics and awareness of the latest development trends in the field of knowledge.
Recognition of primary sources
26. Peer reviewers should identify published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the list of sources for the received manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. Peer reviewers should also draw editor's attention to discovery a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the scope of peer reviewers’ scientific competence.
Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
27. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without a written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during a peer review and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
28. Peer reviewers should not participate in review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of authors, works, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.
Other rights, obligations and conditions of cooperation between the editorial office, authors and reviewers, not regulated by this document, are formed on the basis of international rules of ethics and publication activities in accordance with developing trends in the field of scientific knowledge.