Publication Ethics

This statement explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing articles in AVITEC journal, including authors, editors, and reviewers. The journal editors follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and to refer reviewers to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as appropriate. 

Duties of Authors

1. Standars Reporting: The author of the original research report must present an accurate report about the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately represented in the newspaper. A paper must contain enough details and references to allow others to replicate the work. Deception that is fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate is unethical and unacceptable behavior.
2. Data Access and Retention: The author is asked to provide raw data regarding paper for editorial review, and must be prepared to provide public access to the data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if possible, and in any case ready to maintain the data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors must ensure that they have written works that are fully original, and if the author has used the work and / or words of others that have been cited or quoted appropriately.
4. Double, Excessive, or Concurrent Publication: An author may not generally publish a manuscript that explains basically the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same text to more than one journal simultaneously is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
5. Source Recognition: Appropriate recognition of the work of others must always be given. The author must cite publications that have influence in determining the nature of the work reported.
6. Authorship of the Paper: Essays must be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. All people who have made significant contributions must be registered as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. The appropriate author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no co-authors are inappropriate on paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of this paper and have approved the submission for publication.
7. Transparency and Conflict of Interest: All authors must disclose in their texts any financial conflicts or other substantive conflicts that might be interpreted to influence the results or interpretation of their texts. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
8. Fundamental errors in published work: When an author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to withdraw or correct the paper.
9. Dangers and Subjects of Humans or Animals: If work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

1. Fair Play: Editors at all times evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the author.
2. Confidentiality: Any editor and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the text sent to anyone other than the author, reviewer, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the appropriate publisher, as appropriate.
3. Openness and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted text may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions: The editorial journal is responsible for deciding which articles are submitted to journals that must be published. Validation of questionable works and their interests for researchers and readers must always encourage such decisions. The editors can be guided by the policies of the journal editorial board and are limited by legal requirements such as those currently in effect regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can negotiate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Review of the Manuscript:Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness:  Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:  Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources:  Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.