Archive

2020 1
2019 1 2
2018 1 2
2017 1 2

Search

baner1

 

unnamed

 

banner c111

 

 

images

 

 

 

 

Review procedure

Ethical standards

The editorial board of Aquatic Bioresources and Aquaculture maintains a certain level of requirements when selecting and accepting articles submitted to the editorial board. These norms are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, accepted in the scientific community.

The editorial calls for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE).

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or to return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal's profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article in more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article constitute unethical conduct and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The editorial staff adheres to double-blind peer review to ensure that the manuscripts are evaluated objectively

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to do some work on the review.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand why their comments are based. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.

 

In accordance with the requirements of item 6, paragraphs. 6 of the Ministry of Education and Science № 32 of January 15, 2018 “On Approval of the Procedure for Forming the List of Scientific Professional Editions of Ukraine” submitted for publication are qualitatively independent peer review by scientists who carry out research in the specialty and have at least one publication in the publications included in the last three years to the List, or to foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Collection and / or Scopus, or have monographs or monographs issued by international publishers belonging to the A, B, or C categories of the Researc classification h School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).

In accordance with Clause 15 of this Order, the Chairman and the members of the Editorial Board are responsible for organizing the reviewing of articles and the observance of academic integrity.

All articles submitted to the journal Aquatic Bioresources and Aquaculture undergo a peer review process that aims to evaluate the content of the scientific article as objectively as possible and to provide a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

Unpublished materials that are relevant to the subject of the collection are accepted for printing.

The degree of conformity of the article received to the requirements of the preparation of manuscripts for publication in the journal "Aquatic bioresources and aquaculture" is separately taken into account.

The review process is carried out by members of the Editorial Board. The review process is anonymous for the reviewer and the author.

Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, the article determines the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provides recommendations for eliminating violations.

The members of the editorial board do not participate in the review of their own manuscripts.