About the Journal
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE
APPROVED
by the RTA Senate 08.10.2024.
Decision No 1
Ethical Guidelines for Scientific Publications of the Rezekne Academy of Technologies (RTA)
1. General questions
1.1. The RTA Guidelines on Ethics in Scientific Publications (hereinafter - the Guidelines) are based on the basic ethical principles and requirements set out in the Code of Ethics for Scientists (2.9-2.14), the guidelines of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the RTA Code of Ethics and the Regulations on Academic Integrity of the RTA.
1.2. The Guidelines define the responsibilities of editors-in-chief, reviewers, authors, the RTA Science and Project Management Division (SPMD) and the Information and Communication Technologies Research Centre (publisher) of scientific journals, conference proceedings, monographs, and provide for measures to be taken in cases of unethical conduct.
1.3. The purpose of the Guidelines is to ensure that all parties involved in the scientific publication process act in accordance with the Guidelines and declare conflicts of interest.
1.4. Compliance with the Guidelines is monitored by the RTA Ethics Committee.
2. Responsibility of the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal, proceedings of a scientific conference
2.1. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for:
2.1.1. The journal/conference proceedings publishing process has clearly defined ethical guiding principles - guidelines for submission, requirements for manuscript content and authorship, description of the peer review process, appropriate ethical guidelines and the principle of conflict of interest declaration;
2.1.2. information on the basic principles of publication ethics is available to authors;
2.1.3. the editorial board is free from self-plagiarism, plagiarism (5-15%), double publication, fragmentation and correct attribution of authors;
2.1.4. the basic principles and standards of publication ethics set out in the LAS Code of Ethics for Scientists (2.9-2.14), the guidelines of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); the Regulations on Academic Integrity at the RTA, RTA Scientific Journal Publication Policy;
2.1.5. conflict of interest disclosures by authors, the editor-in-chief and reviewers.
2.2. The Editor-in-Chief must be impartial and honest. The evaluation of the submitted publication and the decision to publish it must not be influenced by personal reasons (professional, political, religious, ideological, gender, etc. convictions), possible financial and non-financial conflicts of interest must be assessed and declared, and the evaluation of the publication must be refused if it is not possible to do so for objective reasons.
2.3. The Editor-in-Chief may decide not to publish an article on the basis of a declaration of conflict of interest by the author, reviewer or Editor-in-Chief, or if the article does not comply with these Guidelines.
2.4. If the Editorial Board of a journal receives a complaint or submission of an ethical violation, the Editor-in-Chief should take the steps outlined in the Guidelines and investigate all complaints, even if the publication has been accepted for publication. The Editor-in-Chief should retain all documentation related to the complaint.
3. Responsibility of reviewers of scientific publications (including monographs)
3.1. Each submitted manuscript is anonymised and sent to two or three referees for review.
3.2. The involvement of an interested party in the preparation of the review is not allowed; the co-author of the manuscript of a scientific publication must not be a reviewer.
3.3. When reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer should assess the results obtained by the author, the author’s competence and the scientific significance of the work, making precise critical remarks.
3.4. The reviewer is responsible for the impartiality of the review process. The review must not be superficial, unduly favourable or unduly unfavourable. The reviewer’s judgement must not be influenced by personal reasons (professional, political, religious, ideological, gender, etc. convictions).
3.5. The reviewer must assess and declare any financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and must refuse to evaluate the manuscript if he/she is unable to do so for objective reasons.
3.6. The reviewer should notify the Editor-in-Chief if a large part of the manuscript under review is very similar to an existing publication.
3.7. Confidentiality must be respected in the peer review process. The reviewer must not use the manuscript submitted for review for personal gain.
3.8. A reviewer may only undertake the review and evaluation of manuscripts that are within his/her competence. If the content of the manuscript to be reviewed exceeds the reviewer’s remit, he/she should withdraw from the review.
4. Authors’ liability
4.1. The author must comply with international and national copyright laws.
4.2. Publication of any scientific work must be agreed with the project or research group leader and all co-authors, if applicable.
4.3. Copying another scientist's published work or parts of it in publications without crediting the author is plagiarism and copyright infringement.
4.4. The inclusion of any photograph, table or text by another author in the publication is permissible, provided that the source is acknowledged.
4.5. When citing a scientific discovery, it is obligatory to cite the original source. The same scientific data can only be used if the first publication is given.
4.6. It is unethical to republish your own previously published work, except in literature reviews.
4.7. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the research on which their publication is based is original and has not been published before. Submitting an article for multiple or double publication is considered a breach of publication ethics.
4.8. When submitting a manuscript, the Author should include all information on related publications, similar works published by other publishers, including translations.
4.9. The authors of scientific achievements and publications are those scientists who have actually and creatively contributed to the scientific work. Colleagues who have provided technical assistance (e.g. using everyday methods and standard analyses) or who have taken care of the layout of the publication (e.g. preparing illustrations, editing) should be personally thanked. Thanks should also be expressed to those colleagues whose comments during the preparation of the manuscript helped in the interpretation of the results.
4.10. The author must declare potential financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.
5. Responsibility of the RTA’s LPPD and ICTPC (publisher)
5.1. The publisher provides the plagiarism checker TurnitIn Similarity on journals.rta.lv.
5.2. The NPPF shall ensure that editors, reviewers and authors declare potential financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in order to ensure transparency in the publishing process.
5.3. If the editor informs that a complaint of ethical misconduct has been received, the publisher shall suspend publication if the publication has already been accepted for publication, or withdraw the publication if the ethical misconduct is discovered after publication.
6. Action to be taken in the event of unethical behaviour
6.1. If an ethical violation is found, it should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal. The reporter must provide substantiated evidence of the misconduct in order for an investigation to be launched.
6.2. The initial investigation is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief. Confidentiality must be respected when gathering evidence and corroborating facts.
6.3. In the case of a minor infringement, no investigation is required. In the case of any infringement found, the author must be given the opportunity to explain.
6.4. In the event of serious misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal, in consultation with the NPPD, decides whether to involve the author's employer in the matter or to conduct further investigations involving external experts.
6.5. If a serious ethical violation is found, the Editor-in-Chief of the scientific journal, in consultation with the NPPD, shall submit the evidence and supporting facts to the RTA Ethics Committee for review, proposing one of the following measures:
6.5.1. the author or reviewer is informed of the unethical behaviour and given a written warning;
6.5.2. an information letter is sent to the author's or reviewer's place of work;
6.5.3. the publication is withdrawn from the scientific journal and its indexing databases when the author or reviewer's workplace is contacted;
6.5.4. the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the ZPPD, shall determine the period of time during which the author's articles will not be accepted for publication;
6.5.5. a report on the infringement and its consequences is drawn up and sent to the relevant professional body or higher authority for further investigation and action.
Sources used:
COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Code of Ethics for Scientists (2.9-2.14).
RTA Code of Ethics.
RTA Academic Integrity Policy.
RTU Publishing Publication Ethics Guidelines
