Publication ethics and malpractice statement.
The Editorial Board of the Journal “KazUEFIT Herald”adheres to ethical principles at all stages of work with publications. We comply with the Committee on Publication Ethics (CPE) code of Ethics and strive to follow its recommendations. We look forward to ethical behaviour from all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors and reviewers.
General duties and responsibilities of the Editorial Board.
Editors evaluate an article based solely on its academic merit and scientific significance.
The founder of the journal has no right to interfere in the decision-making process on publication. The decision-making process is separated from opportunistic, political and any other considerations.
Editors should not use unpublished information in their own research without the written consent of the author. The Editorial Board protects the confidentiality of individual information received from authors and warns reviewers that they also need to follow this.
The editors do not cancel the decision to publish the article, unless in connection with the publication there are no violations of the law or ethics.
In case of suspicion of unfair behaviour or receiving complaints and accusations of unfair behaviour of the author (-s), the Editorial Board takes measures guided by the recommendations of CPE. This rule applies to both published and unpublished materials.
Editors may reject an article on their own without peer review if it is deemed not to correspond to the subject of the journal or the required level of quality. This decision should be made impartially, based solely on the content of the article and the criteria for making such a decision should be clearly stated to the author.
Editors and reviewers should distinguish between criticisms of misconduct and criticisms of the limitations and shortcomings of the study. Scientific discussions are the best way to improve the quality of science, they are encouraged.
Editors, KazUEFIT staff members, members of the Board can submit their own research for publication in the journal, their articles should be no less impartial than articles by other authors.
Ethical principles for authors.
Authors should provide an objective justification of the scientific significance of their research work. It is allowed to publish review articles in the presence of original conclusions and / or recommendations.
The authors guarantee that the articles submitted to the Editorial Board are original and the use in the article of other works is properly indicated. Plagiarism is unacceptable in any of its forms: verbatim copying without reference to the source, paraphrasing without reference to the source, as well as self-plagiarism (if the elements of the article are previously published the authors are obliged to refer to it). False and unreliable information is unacceptable.
The authors guarantee that the articles submitted to the Editorial Board are not under consideration in other publications. Submitting an article to multiple publications at the same time is unethical behaviour and unacceptable.
The author submitting the article must ensure the consent of all co-authors (if any) with its final version and with its submission for publication in the journal.
The source of funding for research should be announced and specified, its role in the research and / or preparation of the article should be stated.
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
Reviewers should agree to review only those articles for which they have sufficient knowledge and which they can review in a timely manner.
The reviewer must refuse to prepare a review if he / she has participated in any work related to the preparation of the article or in the research described in it.
The reviewer must respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the article or review during or after the review to anyone except those persons authorized by the Editorial Board (for example, the editor).
The reviewer has no right to use the information obtained during the review for his own benefit or to discredit other persons or organisations.
The reviewer should inform the editor about a possible conflict of interest associated with the review of the article or seek advice from the editor, if he/she is not sure whether the situation constitutes a conflict of interest.
Evaluation should be conducted objectively, conclusions should be clearly formulated and reasoned, so that the authors can use them to improve the work.