(Developed in accordance with COPE principles and guidelines) (publicationethics.org)
1. Purpose and Scope
1.1. This Ethics Policy aims to ensure academic integrity, transparency, and scientific reliability in the processes of manuscript submission, peer review, editing, and publication in scientific journals hosted/managed through the slib.uz platform.
1.2. The Policy sets out mandatory rules for authors, editorial teams, reviewers, the publisher/platform operator, and all other stakeholders.
1.3. The Policy does not define a methodology for evaluating the scientific merit of a manuscript’s content; rather, it regulates ethical standards and proper governance of the publishing process.
2. Core Principles
slib.uz and journals on the platform adhere to the following principles:
2.1. Impartiality and fairness (non-discriminatory decisions and avoidance of conflicts of interest);
2.2. Process transparency (peer review model, decision-making criteria, fees/costs, and rights are clearly stated);
2.3. Scientific integrity (zero tolerance for data fabrication, manipulation, plagiarism, and other misconduct);
2.4. Willingness to correct the record (prompt correction of errors and, where necessary, retraction or publication of an Expression of Concern);
2.5. Confidentiality (protection of information in the peer review process).
3. Roles and Responsibilities
3.1. Authors’ Responsibilities
Author(s):
3.1.1. Submit original work; do not engage in simultaneous submission (to more than one journal at the same time) or duplicate publication;
3.1.2. Cite all sources properly; avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism;
3.1.3. Present authorship and contributions honestly; do not allow gift authorship or ghost authorship; in authorship disputes, the journal/platform relies on the relevant institutional procedures;
3.1.4. Disclose conflicts of interest (financial/organizational/personal) and funding sources transparently;
3.1.5. Where research involves humans/animals, indicate compliance with relevant ethical approvals, safety requirements, and informed consent;
3.1.6. Ensure data/code/calculations are retained and be ready to provide them to the editorial office when requested (data openness depends on the journal’s policy).
3.2. Editorial Responsibilities (Editors)
Editorial team:
3.2.1. Make decisions solely on the basis of scientific relevance and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope; do not discriminate;
3.2.2. Clearly describe the peer review process (single/double-blind, open review, etc.) and ensure its fairness;
3.2.3. In suspected cases (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, authorship disputes, etc.), follow COPE recommendations and case-handling workflows;
3.2.4. Where errors/misconduct are identified, take appropriate actions (correction, Expression of Concern, retraction).
3.3. Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Reviewer:
3.3.1. Accepts only manuscripts within their competence; declines if a conflict of interest exists;
3.3.2. Maintains confidentiality of the manuscript and does not use it for personal benefit;
3.3.3. Provides impartial, respectful, evidence-based feedback; avoids insulting or discriminatory language contrary to editorial policy.
3.4. Platform Responsibilities (slib.uz)
Platform:
3.4.1. Provides journals with ethics policy templates, case-handling forms, and verification/audit capabilities;
3.4.2. Supports transparency of procedures for handling inquiries and complaints.
4. Peer Review Policy
4.1. Each journal selects its peer review model and states it openly on the website (single-blind, double-blind, open review, etc.).
4.2. Confidentiality, impartiality, and conflict-of-interest rules are observed throughout the review process.
4.3. Where necessary, the editorial office may edit the wording of reviews (e.g., to meet style or etiquette requirements), in a transparent and rules-compliant manner.
5. Plagiarism, Duplicate Publication, and Other Misconduct
The following are strictly prohibited:
5.1.1. Plagiarism (verbatim copying or appropriation of ideas/content);
5.1.2. Duplicate/redundant publication (publishing the same work repeatedly; “salami slicing” — artificially splitting results into multiple papers);
5.1.3. Data fabrication/falsification and manipulation of images/figures;
5.1.4. Peer review manipulation (e.g., proposing fake reviewers);
5.1.5. Citation manipulation (artificially inflating citations).
For such cases, the editorial office follows COPE workflows (investigation → request for explanation → where necessary, contacting institutions/taking action).
6. Authorship Disputes
6.1. In authorship disputes (who qualifies as an author; the extent of contribution), the editorial office does not act as an independent arbitrator; the primary deciding body is the relevant institution(s).
6.2. If a dispute arises, the manuscript process may be paused, clarifications may be requested, and a decision may be made based on the outcome of an institutional investigation.
7. Complaints and Appeals
7.1. Each journal publicly provides a procedure for receiving and handling complaints.
7.2. Complaint types include: disagreement with editorial decisions, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, suspected misconduct, editorial transparency, etc.
7.3. Appeals must include additional evidence; an appeal may be reviewed by an independent editor/editorial board member or a dedicated committee.
8. Post-Publication Actions: Corrections, Retractions, Expression of Concern
8.1. If a significant error or an issue affecting reliability is identified after publication, the journal may apply one of the following actions:
8.1.1. Correction — correcting a specific error;
8.1.2. Expression of Concern — an interim/final notice that an issue is under investigation;
8.1.3. Retraction — where results are unreliable or misconduct is serious.
8.2. A retraction notice must clearly identify the article, be issued promptly, be understandable to readers, and be publicly available and linked to the article page (in line with COPE guidance).
9. Conflicts of Interest and Transparency
9.1. Authors, editors, and reviewers disclose potential conflicts of interest in advance.
9.2. Editorial decisions are made independently of conflicts of interest; where necessary, an alternative editor is assigned.
10. Use of Support Tools and AI
10.1. AI/automated tools may be used for language editing, formatting, and other auxiliary tasks; however:
a) responsibility for the scientific content, results, and conclusions remains with the author(s);
b) where required by the journal, authors disclose the use of AI tools.
(This section may be further specified and strengthened according to each journal’s policy.)
11. Sanctions and Restrictions
If misconduct is confirmed, the journal/platform may apply the following measures:
a) return the manuscript for correction;
b) reject the manuscript;
c) issue a retraction/Expression of Concern;
d) restrict resubmission for a defined period;
e) formally notify the institution/granting body (where appropriate).
12. Ethics Structure and Contact
12.1. Each journal designates:
a) a Publication Ethics Officer or an Ethics Committee;
b) a channel for submitting complaints/appeals;
c) a retraction/correction policy and a post-publication action procedure.