Publication Ethics and Policies

 

GENERAL EDITORIAL POLICY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

 

General Ethical Principles

"Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" journal adheres to the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. Our editorial policy is based on the principles of transparency, objectivity, and fairness, and we strive to ensure the integrity of all stages of the publication process.

We strictly follow the recommendations and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a leading global organization in the field of scholarly publication ethics. All authors, reviewers, and editors involved with the journal are obligated to familiarize themselves with and adhere to these standards, as well as all applicable laws and regulations, including Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Publication Ethics Committee.

"Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" journal actively combats any cases of academic misconduct and ensures the prompt and transparent review of any complaints or concerns related to the ethical aspects of publications. Our goal is to maintain trust in scientific research and ensure the publication of only reliable and ethically sound materials.

 

Editorial Responsibilities

The Editorial board includes: Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Editors.

Editorial operations related to content and peer review are independent and free from the influence of the entities that support the journal.

The Editorial Board and its mambers is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to Journal’s title will be published. The Editorial Board is guided by the Editorial Policy and constrained by legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to decide not to publish submitted manuscripts in case it is found that they do not meet relevant standards concerning the content and formal aspects. Authors will be notified by the editorial staff about the review outcome within 45 days of manuscript submission.

The Editors must hold no conflict of interest with regard to the articles they consider for publication. If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, the selection of reviewers and all decisions on the manuscript shall be made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, who shall evaluate manuscripts for their scientific content free from any racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political bias.

The Editor and the Editorial Staff must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. The information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

The Editors and the Editorial Staff shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors before, during and after the evaluation process and the authors remain anonymous to reviewers until the end of the review procedure.

 

Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors warrant that their manuscript is their original work, that it has not been published before and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to another journal constitutes misconduct and eliminates the manuscript from consideration by Journal’s title.

Please note that posting of preprints on preprint servers or repositories is not considered prior publication. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting upon submission of the manuscript. This must include a link to the location of the preprint. Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version on the preprint server/repository to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.

If a manuscript has previously been submitted elsewhere, authors should provide information about the previous reviewing process and its outcome. This provides an opportunity for authors to detail how subsequent revisions have taken into account previous reviews, and why certain reviewer comments were not taken into account. Information about the author's previous reviewing experience is to the author's advantage: it often helps the editors select more appropriate reviewers.

In case a submitted manuscript is a result of a research project, or its previous version has been presented at a conference in the form of an oral presentation (under the same or similar title), detailed information about the project, the conference, etc. shall be provided in a footnote / Acknowledgements.

It is the responsibility of each author to ensure that manuscripts submitted to Journal’s title are written with ethical standards in mind. Authors affirm that the manuscript contains no unfounded or unlawful statements and does not violate the rights of third parties. The Publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.

 

Reporting standards

"Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" journal aims to serve the research community by ensuring that all articles contain sufficient information to allow reproduction of the work by other researchers. Submitted manuscripts must provide enough detail and references to enable reviewers, and subsequently readers, to verify the claims presented in them. The deliberate presentation of false claims is a violation of ethical standards.

Our goal is to ensure:

  • Transparency: Clear and complete disclosure of all research details.
  • Reproducibility: Provision of sufficient information for other researchers to repeat an experiment or analysis and obtain similar results.
  • Verifiability: The ability for reviewers and readers to assess the validity and justification of the presented claims.

Reporting standards require authors to:

  • Full and accurate description of methods: This includes details on materials, equipment, experimental conditions, statistical methods, software, timeframes, data collection procedures, etc. The goal is for others to be able to replicate your steps.
  • Clear presentation of data: Providing information on what data was collected and how, how it was processed, what exclusions were made, and what limitations were present.
  • Comprehensive results: Including in articles not only significant results but also those that may be considered less informative, provided they are important for understanding the research.
  • Disclosure of all relevant details: Providing all research details that may be critical for its reproducibility.

Authors are exclusively responsible for the content of their materials and must ensure they have permission from all involved parties to make the content public. Authors are also exclusively responsible for the content of their data/supplementary files. Authors affirm that data protection regulations, ethical standards, third-party copyright, and other rights have been respected in the process of collecting, processing, and sharing data.

Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or other materials that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s). Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.

 

Inclusive language

The journal “Theory and practice of metallurgy” promotes accessible, and inclusive language to ensure that scientific research is widely understood and respectful of all individuals.

To promote accessibility, authors should:

  • Use clear, simple language that is understandable across disciplines and for non-native English and/or Ukrainian speakers;
  • Avoid overly technical or unnecessary terminology, unnecessary complexity, long sentences, repetition, uncommon acronyms and abbreviations, stereotypes, idiomatic speech, slang, and cultural assumptions;
  • Explain technical terms when needed;
  • Use inclusive language, respect diversity and avoid implying superiority of any group based on gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, health status, age, or socio-economic background.

 

Authorship

Authors must make sure that only contributors who have significantly contributed to the submission are listed as authors and, conversely, that all contributors who have significantly contributed to the submission are listed as authors. If persons other than authors were involved in important aspects of the research project and the preparation of the manuscript, their contribution should be acknowledged in a footnote or the Acknowledgements section.

For inclusion on a manuscript's author list, an individual must meet the following five criteria:

  • made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
  • contributed to the drafting the work, or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
  • provided final approval of the version to be published;
  • agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved;
  • agreed to be named on the author list, and approved of the full author list.

The addition or removal of authors during the editorial process will only be permitted only if a justifiable explanation is provided to the Editorial team and Publisher.

Attempts to introduce 'ghost', 'gift' or ‘honorary’ authorship will be treated as cases of academic misconduct.

 

Citation policy

Authors should ensure that where material is taken from other sources (including their own published work), the source is clearly cited and that appropriate permission is obtained.

Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their own work.

Authors should not copy references from other publications unless they have read the cited work.

Authors should not predominantly cite their own publications or those of their friends, colleagues, or institutions.

Authors should not quote advertisements or promotional materials.

Editors and reviewers should not ask authors to include citations just to increase the number of citations to their own work or that of a colleague, to the journal or other journal to which they are affiliated.

In accordance with the COPE guidelines, we expect that "original wording taken directly from the publications of other researchers should be enclosed in quotation marks with appropriate references." This condition also applies to the author's own work. COPE produced a discussion paper on citation manipulation with best practice recommendations.

 

Plagiarism, data falsification and image manipulation

Plagiarism is unacceptable in the journal. Plagiarism involves copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source, even your own publications, without acknowledging the original source.

Reuse of text copied from another source must be enclosed in quotation marks, and the original source must be quoted. If the study design, structure, or language of the manuscript was inspired by previous studies, those studies should be cited.

All submitted materials are checked for plagiarism using the online service Turnitin. If plagiarism is found during the peer review process, the manuscript have to be rejected. If plagiarism is found after publication, it will be investigated and action taken in accordance with the journal's retraction policy.

Image files must not be modified or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information contained in the original image. If incorrect image manipulations are identified and confirmed during the peer review process, the editor have to reject the manuscript. If image manipulation is detected and confirmed after an article's publication, the Editorial Board will take action in accordance with the journal's retraction policy.

All data presented in the manuscript, whether as text, images, or tables, must be original. Data should not be improperly selected, altered, enhanced, or fabricated. This includes:
          – excluding data points to increase the significance of findings,
          – falsifying data,
          – selecting results that support a particular conclusion at the expense of inconsistent data,
          – deliberately choosing tools or methods of analysis to support a particular conclusion.

 

Conflict of interests

Conflicts of interest (COIs, also known as "competing interests") occur when matters not related to research can reasonably be perceived to affect the neutrality or objectivity of a work or its evaluation. This can happen at any stage of the research cycle, including during the experimental phase, during the writing of a manuscript, or in the process of turning a manuscript into a published article.

If you are not sure, declare a potential interest or discuss with the editors. Undeclared interests may result in sanctions. Articles with undeclared conflicts of interest are rejected by the editors. If a conflict of interest is discovered after publication, actions will be taken regarding the article in accordance with the journal's retraction policy.

Conflicts of interest do not always prevent a work from being published or from someone participating in the peer review process. However, they must be declared. A clear description of all possible conflicts — whether they actually had an impact or not — allows others to make informed decisions about the work as they review it.

Declared conflicts of interest will be considered by the editor and reviewers and included in the published article.

 

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editorial Board and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.

By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree to abide by the journal Editorial Policies.

 

ORCID

The journal asks that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID). ORCID numbers for all authors and co-authors should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

ORCID registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. 

 

Funding information

If a paper is a result of the funded project, authors are required to specify funding sources according to their contracts with the funder. 

 

Reviewers’ Responsibilities 

Reviewers are required to provide written, competent and unbiased reviews in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the manuscriptі. 

The reviewers assess manuscript for the compliance with the profile of the journal, the relevance of the investigated topic and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of information presented in the manuscript, the presentation style and scholarly apparatus.

Reviewers should alert the Editor to any well-founded suspicions or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. Reviewers should recognize relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and alert the Editor to substantial similarities between a reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or under consideration for publication elsewhere, in the event they are aware of such. Reviewers should also alert the Editor to a parallel submission of the same manuscript to another journal, in the event they are aware of such.

Reviewers must not have conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding sources for the research. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.

A selected reviewer should decline the editor's invitation to review the manuscript if they:
          – Have a recent publication or patent with the author(s) of the manuscript;
          – Collaborate or have recently collaborated with the author(s) of the manuscript;
          – Have a close personal connection with the author(s) of the manuscript;
          – Have a financial interest in the subject matter of the work;
          – Feel unable to be objective;
          – Are not sufficiently qualified to review the research described in the manuscript;
          – Are unable to review the manuscript within the given deadline.

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. The information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

The journal conducts double blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to authors in their comments.

 

COLLABORATION POLICY

"Theory and Practice of Metallurgy" journal aims to collaborate with researchers and scientific institutions worldwide, fostering openness and international knowledge exchange.

However, as of February 24, 2022, due to the unprovoked full-scale armed aggression of Russia against Ukraine, the journal's editorial board has ceased cooperation with:

  • Individuals and legal entities who are residents of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, or are located within the territories of these states;
  • Individuals or entities directly or indirectly sponsored by these states.

 

USE OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS (LLM) AND GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) TOOLS

"Theory and practice of metallurgy" conforms to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on chat bots, ChatGPT and scholarly manuscripts and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools.

AI bots such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as authors on your submission.

Authors must clearly indicate the use of tools based on large language models and generative AI for data or code generation, data collection, cleaning, analysis, or interpretation, (which tool was used and for what purpose), preferably in the methods or acknowledgements sections. Photography, videos or illustrations created wholly or partly using generative AI are not considered acceptable. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow a case-by-case review. Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical. The use of AI-based tools for copyediting and spell checking does not need to be declared.

AI outputs should not be cited as primary sources for backing up specific claims.

Editors and Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of the editorial work and the peer review process. Editors must not share information about submitted manuscripts or peer review reports with any tools based on large language models and generative AI. Reviewers must not use any tools based on large language models and generative AI to generate review reports. Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical and undermines transparency in editorial work and peer review. The editorial and review processes are confidential, and using AI tools on the manuscript makes it public, violating the confidentiality principle, disclosing confidential information in public, and compromising transparency.

 

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PROCEDURE

Readers who have concerns or complaints about published articles should first contact the respective author to try to resolve the issue directly before contacting the editor.

The editorial office can be contacted in cases where it is impractical to contact the authors, if the authors did not respond, or if the problem was not resolved. The editors will coordinate with the applicant, author/s and editors-in-chief or members of the editorial board to investigate, correct or resolve any problems or complaints.

Complaints, comments or requests for updates regarding the scientific soundness, ethical or legal aspects of either the article or its peer review process will be further investigated where appropriate. All complaints, comments or requests for updates regarding published articles are investigated by the editors with the support of the editorial board and final approval by the editor-in-chief. For ethical reasons, final decisions are made by the Editorial Board to ensure adherence to the core principles of publication ethics formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Where necessary, consultations will be held with other individuals and institutions, including university leaders or experts in the field. A lawyer may be requested if the complaint has legal implications.

Personal comments or criticism are not accepted. All complaints are investigated, including anonymous complaints. Complainants may request that the editors consider their complaint in confidence, and the editors, any editors-in-chief or other members of the editorial board will attempt to do so, to the extent appropriate and in accordance with our internal procedures.

Decisions regarding corrections, comments and replies, expressions of concern, or retractions resulting from an investigation are made by the Editorial Board and communicated to the authors.

If the complaint is not considered to be justified, further communication will only be considered if additional information is provided to substantiate the concern.

Complainants may not receive an update on the status of the investigation until a final decision is made, however, complainants will be notified if an update is posted. The editors and members of the editorial board are not required to provide additional information. Communication will be terminated if it is not deemed fair or respectful. Readers with complaints or concerns should be aware that investigation require time, which, according to the journal's internal regulations, shouldn't exceed 3 months.

The editors of the journal work closely with authors and editors to promote adherence to the core principles of publishing ethics formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We encourage the use of the COPE resources available on their website. All manuscripts must meet standards of ethical conduct. When we become aware of ethical issues, we are committed to investigating and taking appropriate action.

The publisher and editors are always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, reviews and apologies if there is a legal need to do so.

 

ARTICLE RETRACTION PROCEDURE

The infringement of the legal limitations of the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), the violation of of professional ethical codes and research misconduct, such as multiple submissions, duplicate or overlapping publication, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and data fabrication, undisclosed use of tools based on large language models and generative AI, honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty), unethical research  or any major misconduct require retraction of an article. Occasionally a retraction can be used to correct errors in submission or publication. 

For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this practice has been adopted for article retraction by “Theory and practice of metallurgy":
          – The electronic version of the retraction note, a link is made to the original article;
          – In the electronic version of the original article, a link is made to the retraction note where it is clearly stated that the article has been retracted;
          – The original article is retained unchanged, save for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”