Publishing Ethics Regulation

The Editorial Board and the Educational Institution “Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics”, as the publisher of the collection of scientific papers “Open Semantic Technologies for the Design of Intelligent Systems”, support policies aimed at adhering to the principles of publishing ethics and recognize that monitoring compliance with the principles of publishing (editorial) ethics is one of the main components of peer review and publication.

Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief

Decision to publish an article

The editor-in-chief of the Collection of scientific works “Open semantic technologies for designing intelligent systems” is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the editorial office.

This decision should always be made on the basis of verification of the reliability of the work and its importance for researchers and readers. The editor-in-chief can be guided by the methodological recommendations developed by the editorial board of the journal and such legal requirements as the prevention of slander, copyright infringement and plagiarism. In addition, when deciding on publication, the chief editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers (or representatives of the scientific and pedagogical team).

Justice

The editor-in-chief of the Collection of scientific works “Open Semantic Technologies for the Design of Intelligent Systems” evaluates the submitted works by their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship or political views of the author.

Confidentiality

The editor-in-chief of the Collection of scientific works “Open Semantic Technologies for the Design of Intelligent Systems” and the staff of the editorial board should not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone else, except for the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, consultants of the editorial board, as well as the publisher.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

The information contained in the presented article should not be used in any own work of the chief editor and members of the editorial board without the written permission of the author. Confidential information or ideas obtained during the review should be kept secret and not used for personal gain.

The editor-in-chief should refuse to participate in the review if there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, cooperation or other relations with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the article.

The editor-in-chief should require all authors of the collection to provide information on the corresponding competing interests and publish corrections if the conflict of interest was exposed after publication. If necessary, another appropriate action may be taken, such as the publication of a disclaimer or expression of concern.

Studying ethical complaints

The editor-in-chief of the Collection of Scientific Papers “Open Semantic Technologies for the Design of Intelligent Systems” should take reasonably quick steps when receiving ethical complaints regarding the submitted manuscript or published article, having contact with the editors, publisher (or academic staff).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Participation in the decisions of the editorial board

Reviewing helps the editor in chief when deciding on the publication of the work, and through the editorial contact with the author, can also help the author improve his work.

Responsiveness

Each selected reviewer, who feels incompetent to review the scientific research described in the manuscript, or who knows that its rapid review is impossible, should notify the editor and exclude himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Each manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. It should not be shown or discussed with other persons except for persons authorized by the editor.

Objectivity Standards

Reviews should be carried out objectively. Personal attacks on the author are unacceptable. The reviewer should express his point of view clearly and reasonably.

Recognition of Sources

If the authors did not make a reference to any published work, the reviewer should note this fact.

Any statement that any data, conclusion or argument has already been reported in the scientific press should be accompanied by an appropriate link. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the chief editor in the event of any significant similarity or partial coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other published work known to him personally.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished information disclosed in the submitted article should not be used in any reviewer’s own work without the written permission of the author. Confidential Information or