Ethics of scientific publications
1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple method of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, Publishers and the Scientific Society for the journal Actual Optometry
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communications and invests in this process, but is also responsible for complying with all current recommendations in the published work.
1.3. The publisher is committed to the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Our journal programs present an impartial “report” on the development of scientific thought and research, therefore we are also aware of the responsibility for properly presenting these “reports”, especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications presented in this document.
2. Editors Responsibilities
2.1. Decision to publish
The editor of the scientific journal Actual Optometry is personally and independently responsible for making decisions about publication, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Society. The credibility of the work in question and its scientific significance should always be the basis of the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policies of the Editorial Board of the journal Actual Optometry, being limited to current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officers of the Scientific Society) during the publication decision.
2.2. Decency
The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The editor and editorial board of the journal Actual Optometry are obliged without the need not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, and others.
Scientific Consultants and Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely: request a Co-editor, Assistant Editor, or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when considering work instead of self-review and decision-making) in the event of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.
2.5. Supervision of publications
The editor who provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous should inform the Publisher (and / or the relevant Scientific Society) with the aim of promptly notifying about changes, deletions of publications, expressions of concern and other relevant situation statements.
2.6. Research involvement and collaboration
The editor, together with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), takes adequate response measures in the case of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or requirement, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Impact on the decisions of the Editorial Board
Reviewing helps the Editor make a decision on publication and, through appropriate interaction with Authors, can also help the Author to improve the quality of work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, located at the very heart of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to perform substantial work on the review of the manuscript.
3.2. Performance
Any selected Reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the manuscript or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor of Actual Optometry and ask him to exclude him from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with any persons not authorized to do so by the Editor.
3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and convincingly express their opinions.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. For any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier, the manuscript should have a corresponding bibliographic link. The Reviewer must also draw the Editor’s attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is within the scientific competence of the Reviewer.
3.6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work.
4. Responsibilities of the Authors
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1 The authors of the original research report should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, the Editorial point of view should be clearly marked.
4.2. Data access and storage
Authors may request raw data related to the manuscript for review by editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if this is feasible, and in any case be prepared to store this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors must make sure that the original work is completely original and in the case of using works or statements of other Authors must provide relevant bibliographic references or excerpts.
4.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from representing someone else's work as an author to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else’s work (without attribution) to claiming one’s own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneous publication
4.4.1 In the general case, the Author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same study, in more than one journal as an original publication. The presentation of the same manuscript at the same time in more than one journal is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal.
4.4.3. Publishing a certain type of articles (for example, clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical, subject to certain conditions. Authors and editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication, which necessarily represents the same data and interpretation as in the original published work.
The bibliography of the primary work should be presented in the second publication. More detailed information on permissible forms of secondary (repeated) publications can be found at
4.5. Recognition of primary sources
It is always necessary to recognize the contributions of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the provision of grants, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of the publication
4.6.1 The authors of the publication can be only those who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of work, the development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. In cases where research participants have made significant contributions in a particular direction in a research project, they should be listed as individuals who have made significant contributions to this research.
4.6.2. The author must ensure that all participants who have made significant contributions to the study are presented as Co-authors and those who have not participated in the study are not listed as Co-authors, that all Co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submitting it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are the objects of research
4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures or equipment, the operation of which is possible any unusual risk, the author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of research, the Authors must make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the study comply with the legislation and regulatory documents of research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should be clearly
It is reflected that from all people who have become objects of research, obtained informed consent. You must always ensure that your privacy rights are respected.
4.8. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest
4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are necessarily subject to disclosure include employment, advising, stock ownership, obtaining fees, providing expert advice, a patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Significant errors in published works
In the event that the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of Actual Optometry journal about this and interact with the Editor in order to promptly remove the publication or correct errors. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
5.1. The publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the ethical performance of editors,
Reviewers and Authors of the journal Actual Optometry in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be confident that the potential profits from advertising or reprints did not affect Editors' decisions.
5.2. The publisher should provide support to the Editors of Actual Optometry magazine in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or Publishers, if this contributes to the performance of duties by the Editors.
5.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical recommendations, procedures for removing and correcting errors.
5.4 The publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) as necessary.
The section is prepared based on the materials of the publishing house of scientific and medical literature Elsevier, as well as materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)