In their activities, the Editorial boards and Editorial collegiums and review team are guided by the requirements of adherence to publication ethics in the preparation and publication of journals produced by the ASSOCIATE PRINTING-AND-PUBLICATION CENTRE “TECHNOSPHERA”. The international practice on the ethics of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications is observed by all participants in the editorial and publishing process — authors, editors, reviewers, and the publishing team creating all of our journals.

The editorial board monitors compliance with the ethics requirements based on the manuals prepared by domestic and international specialized organizations, associations and publishers, as well as the Association of Science Editors and Publishers. The main standards relied in ASSOCIATE PRINTING-AND-PUBLICATION CENTRE “TECHNOSPHERA” are those developed by the Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications, adopted by ASEP.

1. The editors are responsible for the content of the materials published and recognize that responsibility. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis in the decision to publish.

2. The editors make fair and objective decisions, regardless of any commercial considerations and provide a fair and efficient process for the independent review.

3. The editors evaluate manuscripts' intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, and/or the political preferences of the authors.

4. The editors do not work with articles where there is a conflict of interests.

5. The editors resolve conflict situations arising during the editorial process and use all available means to resolve these situations.

6. The editors of the journal, if necessary, publish information concerning corrections, rebuttals, and review articles in order to adhere to the high standards of objectiveness, honesty and integrity.

7. The editors of the journal do not publish the final version of the article without the consent of the authors.

8. The reviewer evaluates his or her own availability before the examination of the article and accepts materials for review only if the reviewer is able to allow for sufficient time as to ensure the quality of his or her work and the communication with authors. In the event of a possible delay in the review process, the reviewer must inform the editor in due time.

9. The reviewer notifies the editorial staff of any conflict of interest (if one exists) before the start of the review of the article.

10. The reviewer does not send information about the article and or any of the data contained within the article to any third party.

11. The reviewer does not use the information obtained from the article for any personal and or commercial purposes.

12. The reviewer may not involve third parties in the review of the article without the consent of the Editorial board of the journal that submitted the manuscript for review.

13. The reviewer does not make conclusions about the quality of the article on the basis of subjective data, e.g. the personal relationship to the author, gender, age, religion, etc. For additional protection from the factor of subjectivity in the editorial, double blind review is used when the reviewer does not know the names of the authors of the article and the names of the organizations in which the article submitted for review was performed.

14. The reviewer uses the only tactful and appropriate language and explanations in respect to the articles, avoiding any personal remarks. The reviewer should confirm his critical conclusions with solid, qualitative arguments, provide documentary evidence to his conclusions and criticism.

15. The author submits previously not published materials for review. If the article is based on previously published materials which are not academic articles or based on materials presented on the Internet, the author should notify the editorial staff of the journal.

16. The author does not submit the same article to different journals for review.

17. All co-authors consent to the submission of their articles to the journal.

18. The author informs the editorial staff of a potential conflict of interest.

19. The author takes the necessary steps to ensure the correctness of citations in the submitted article.

20. The list of authors included only individuals who have made significant contributions to the research.

21. The author correctly cites his or her previous work as to avoid self-plagerism in the manuscript and the artificial increase of volume of publications (salami-slicing).

22. The author, who is acting as the contact with journal, informs all other co-authors of all changes and suggestions from the editorial staff, and does not make decisions regarding the article alone without the written consent of all co-authors.

23. The author properly corresponds with the reviewer through contact with the editor and responds to comments and observations if they arise.

24. If necessary, the authors either adjust the data presented in the article, or refute them.

25. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in the process, but is also responsible for complying with all current guidelines and standards for publishing scientific work.

26. The publisher does not affect the editorial policy of the journal.

27. The publisher provides legal support to the journal if necessary.

28. The publisher provides for the timely release of issues of the journal.

29. The publisher publishes changes, explanations, and recalls articles that have been identified to contain scientific misconduct and or critical errors.

During the consideration of an article, the Editorial staff of the APP Center “TECHNOSPHERA” may conduct a verification of the submitted materials with the help of the Anti-plagiarism system. In the case of the discovery of multiple incidents of content matching, the Editorial staff acts in accordance with the rules of COPE.