Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit is on the view that ethicas aspects of publication are an important part of the editorial work and of the reviewing process. Prevention of inappropriate activities, such as dissimulation, plagiarism, has been a responsibility of any author, editor, reviewer, publisher and institution that take part in a publication process.

Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to ensure ethics and quality in publication. 

National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit as a publisher of “Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit” takes its duties to guarantee serious approach to all stages of publishing and recognizes the responsibilities. Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue have no influence on editorial decisions.

Editorial policy and ethical standarts of the collection of scientific papers "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit".

In the "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit" are published materials, which have a great scientific, theoretical and practical importance and are prepared at a high scientific level as the result of scientific researches.

Editorial policy of the collection of scientific papers "Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit" is based on the recommendations of the Ethics Committee of publications (Committee on Publication Ethics) and the  Ethics Codex of the scientist of Ukraine.

1. Ethics of Publications

1.1. To reviewing are involved reputable scientists and trainees in the field of the article.

The articles submitted for publication go through the "double-blind "review and plagiarism test.

1.3. To reviewing are accepted scientific articles issued in full compliance with the materials which are submitted by the authors to periodicals. To determine the degree of compliance with these requirements, all articles and related materials are passing throw the initial control. In the case of observations during the initial control, article and other materials are returned to the author to correct deficiencies that are found.

1.4. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors;  it is carried out by two reviewers.  For review, the encoded article is provided to the reviewer, who is the leading specialist on the topic of the article.

1.5. Reviewer, who received coded article fills the typical form and selects one of the following recommendations - recommended for publication; recommended revision; not recommended for publication.

1.6. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted to them are the intellectual property of authors and the information placed in the manuscript, is not subjected to disclosure. Reviewers can not use the data of their works before publication in their own interests.

1.7. In case of a negative conclusion (no recommendation for publication or determination of the need for revision of the article) reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the decision.

1.8. Further work with the article, which is accepted for publication, is made by apparatus of responsible for the formation of a periodical unit according to the technological process of preparing the collection.

1.9. The decision of the editorial board of the working group is told to the author (-s) of an article. If revision is necessary , to author (-s) also are sent text of review containing recommendations for revision of the article. Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by editors of collection.

1.10. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative opinion of reviewer an article becomes rejected  and not subjected for further reviewing.

1.11. Revision does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.

2. Ethical obligations of authors

2.1. The author takes full responsibility for the content of the article.

2.2. The author must correctly indicate the sources used in his work if they were not obtained by the author himself.

2.3. Plagiarism is illegal.

2.4. Co-authors of the article must be persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the submitted work and who share responsibility for the results.

3. Ethical commitment of reviewer

3.1.Reviewer should objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and presentation, and to consider whether the work is done well enough for high scientific and literary standards.

3.2. The reviewer must adequately explain and argue their opinions so that associate editor and the author (s) could understand on what are based on his observations.

3.3. The reviewer shall provide the review in time.

 

Retraction Policy

Retraction of a published article is carried out in accordance with the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).

Retraction may be initiated in cases of:

• proven facts of scientific dishonesty (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism);
• significant methodological errors that undermine the reliability of the conclusions;
• duplication of publication;
• unethical research practices.

In case of retraction:

• the original article is kept in the public domain as part of a scientific archive;
• The PDF version is clearly marked with a “Retracted” marker;
• an official notice of retraction is published, stating the reasons;
• authors receive a written notification with appropriate justification.

 

Author self-citation policy

The journal supports the principles of responsible citation.

Self-citation is allowed only if it is scientifically justified, in particular in the following cases:

• logical continuation of previous research;
• direct use of previously developed methods;
• references to key previous results.

As a general recommendation:

• a self-citation level of up to 20% of the total number of sources is usually acceptable;
• exceeding 25% requires clear scientific justification;
• Excessive self-citation for the purpose of artificially increasing citation rates is considered a violation of publication ethics.

The editorial board reserves the right to request corrections to the reference list or reject the manuscript if the citation practices do not comply with the journal's ethical standards.

 

Complaints and appeals procedure

Complaints and appeals are handled in accordance with COPE recommendations.

Each case is considered:

• Editor-in-Chief;
• Editor-in-Chief;
• The editor who accompanied the manuscript.

If necessary, members of the editorial board or independent experts may be involved in the review.

All complaints are handled impartially, confidentially, and within a reasonable time frame.

 

Editorial responsibility

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on the publication of manuscripts solely on the basis of:

• scientific value;
• originality;
• methodological soundness;
• compliance with the magazine's topic.

Editor-in-chief:

• makes a decision on publication solely on the basis of the scientific value of the manuscript;
• guarantees an unbiased assessment of materials;
• ensures the confidentiality of the editorial process;
• regulates conflicts of interest;
• ensures compliance with COPE's ethical standards and principles;
• reviews cases of violation of publication ethics.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

• provide objective and constructive conclusions;
• maintain confidentiality;
• declare the existence of a conflict of interest;
• not to use unpublished materials for your own purposes;
• indicate relevant raw sources;
• report the significant similarity of the manuscript to other published works.

Authors' responsibilities

Authors must ensure:

• originality of the submitted manuscript;
• proper citation of sources;
• lack of simultaneous submission of the manuscript to other publications;
• correct definition of authorship;
• disclosure of potential conflicts of interest;
• indicating the sources of research funding.

If significant errors are discovered after publication, authors are required to immediately notify the editorial office and facilitate corrections or retraction.

 

 

CANCELLATION POLICY

Violation of legal restrictions of the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), professional codes of ethics and misconduct regarding research (multiple submissions, duplicate publication, fictitious claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and data fabrication, genuine errors reported by authors, unethical research) or any serious violations require retraction of the article. Sometimes the retraction procedure may be used to correct errors in the manuscript or publication. The primary purpose of a retraction is to correct an error while preserving the integrity of the scientific research, not to punish the author.

For any retracted article, the reason for the retraction and the person initiating it are clearly stated in the retraction notice. Standards for handling retractions of an already published article include: In the electronic version, the retraction note has a link to the original article. In the electronic version of the original article, there is a link to the retraction note, which clearly states that the article has been retracted. The original article is preserved unchanged, except for a watermark in the PDF file indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”

 

PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

1. Filing a complaint

A complaint may be submitted by an author, reviewer, reader, or any other member of the scientific community to the editorial email and contain: a clear description of the essence of the violation; evidence (links to sources, copies of documents, excerpts from texts, etc.); contact details of the applicant.

2. Initial review

The complaint is registered by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who conducts a preliminary analysis and determines whether it concerns issues of academic integrity and publication ethics. In case of insufficient data, the applicant may be invited to provide additional materials.

3. Review of the complaint by the editorial board

The complaint is submitted for consideration by the editorial board, which determines:

the nature of the violation (plagiarism, data falsification, double publication, illegal authorship, violation of the review procedure, etc.);

the scale and consequences of the breach;

available evidence.

Independent experts are involved as needed.

4. Decision-making

The editorial board may make one of the following decisions:

• Reject the complaint (if it is unfounded or not supported by evidence).
• Make comments to the authors and oblige them to correct the errors.
• Reject the article (if a violation is detected during the review stage).
• To retract an already published article (with a corresponding official publication of the retraction).
• Notify the author's academic institution or employer about the recorded violations.
• Deny the author further publications in the journal for a specified period of time (sanction).

5. Notification of the parties

The author(s) and the applicant will receive written notification of the results of the review.

In the event of a retraction of an article, a message stating the reasons is published on the journal's website.

6. Appeal

The author(s) or applicant have the right to file an appeal within 30 days of receiving the decision.

The appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by members of the editorial board or external experts.

7. Process principles

Transparency: the procedure is clearly regulated and available for review on the journal's website.

Privacy: Complainants and reviewers remain anonymous (at their request).

Impartiality: decisions are made collectively, taking into account all evidence.

Compliance with international standards– the procedure is based on the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).