The peer review procedure, publication ethics, and editorial policy of the “Scientific and Technical Bulletin of Livestock Farming Institute of NAAS of Ukraine” are based on the principles of academic integrity and comply with the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
Scientific articles submitted to the editors undergo plagiarism checks and compliance checks regarding formatting and references. Articles formatted according to the Bulletin’s requirements with a text originality of at least 80% are admitted to the review stage.
Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is conducted (within 7 working days) to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal and is carried out on the principle of double-blind (anonymous) review, where reviewers do not know the authors’ personal data, and authors do not know the reviewer’s personal data.
Ethical Obligations of Editors
- Editorial board members, led by the Editor-in-Chief, are responsible for deciding which articles to publish based on the principles of validity and scientific significance.
- Editors are responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements and recommendations in the scientific article.
- Editors have the right to consult with reviewers when making a final decision on publication.
- The editor must consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without bias, evaluating each properly regardless of race, religion, nationality, or any other affiliation, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s).
- Sole responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript lies with the editor. This includes taking into account the reviewer’s recommendation, though manuscripts may be rejected without review if deemed outside the Publication’s scope.
- Unpublished data, information, or ideas obtained during the review process are kept confidential.
- Following a positive decision, the article is published in the journal and placed on the institution’s electronic resources.
- The editor’s responsibilities regarding a manuscript authored by the editor themselves must be delegated to another qualified member of the editorial board.
- If convincing evidence is presented that the content or conclusions of a published work are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of a correction or erratum in the next issue.
Ethical Obligations of Authors
- Provide reliable results of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance.
- Ensure the accuracy of bibliographic references.
- Cite publications that have significantly influenced the nature of the work. Except for reviews, citations of work not directly related to the report should be minimized.
- Authors should not publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Concurrent submission is considered unethical and unacceptable.
- Authors bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and the fact of their publication.
- The author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board.
Ethical Obligations of Reviewers
- Peer review assists the Editor in making decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their work.
- If a reviewer feels unqualified to review the research, they should notify the editor.
- Reviewers must not participate in the review if there is a conflict of interest resulting from competitive or collaborative relationships with the authors.
- Reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
- Every manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document.
- Reviewers must explain and argue their judgments adequately so that editors and authors can understand the basis of their comments.
- Reviewers should point out cases of insufficient citation of relevant work by other scientists.
- Reviewers must provide their feedback in a timely manner.
- Unpublished data from manuscripts must not be used in the reviewer’s own research.