For reviewers

Ethics of reviewers

 

REVIEWERS ‘ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS

The policy of the scientific and production journal “Agroscience and Practice” on the main ethical standards that should guide the subjects of the review process, includes the following:

  • in case of uncertainty of the reviewer that his qualification corresponds to the level and direction of the research presented in the article, he should immediately refuse to review;
  • the purpose of the reviewer is to objectively assess the quality of the article and determine the degree of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards;
  • in the process of reviewing the narrow selfish interests of individuals should be leveled and the intellectual independence of the authors should be respected;
  • to ensure the right of each author to intellectual property, the reviewer is prohibited from any use of the received arguments and conclusions of the author without the permission of the latter;
  • in the event of a conflict of interest of the research results with the personal developments of the reviewer or in the presence of such professional or personal ties of the reviewer with the author that may influence the reviewer’s judgment, he should return the article indicating a conflict of interest;
  • the priority is the confidentiality of the peer-reviewed article, which prohibits the reviewer from disclosing information from the article or discussing unpublished conclusions and recommendations of the author with other colleagues (except when the reviewer requires special advice, which requires permission from the editorial board);
  • The seriousness of the accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to adequately and reasonably substantiate his comments. Any allegations of plagiarism or biased citations should be accompanied by an appropriate reference (the reviewer’s conclusions should not be defamatory or discrediting the author without good reason);
  • in case the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he must apply to the editorial board with a request for collective consideration of the author’s article;
  • as the reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scholars working in the field of the peer-reviewed article, remarks on insufficient citation of the reviewer’s own research are identified as biased;
  • maintaining a constant periodical of the scientific and production journal “Agronauka i praktika” requires the reviewer to have high self-discipline, which is revealed through the timeliness of reviewing the article and respect for the authors of the article. violation of the terms of providing reviews, the relationship with this reviewer is terminated);
  • Prohibiting the reviewer from using or disclosing unpublished information or the author’s argument is not considered contrary to ethical standards to discontinue some of the reviewer’s own research if, in his opinion, it becomes ineffective.