Developing the guidelines and the procedure of consideration, reviewing and publishing of the articles, the editorial board of the collection of scientific works “Computer Technologies of Printing” has followed the recommendations:
- Recommendations of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org
- Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (developed in Committee on Publication Ethics http://www.morphology.dp.ua/_pub/MORPHO-2007-01-03/07redpnp.pdf (in Ukrainian); Available from: URL: http://www.publicationethics.org.uk;
- Requirements for reviewed journals developed by Elsevier according to international guidelines of publishing ethics (February, 2010) http://www.morphology.dp.ua/_pub/MORPHO-2013-07-01/13redpnp.pdf (in Ukrainian).
- International standards developed at the Second World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22–24, 2010).
Kleinert S. & Wager E. (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T. & Steneck N. (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp. 317–28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7).
Wager E. & Kleinert S. (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T. & Steneck N. (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp. 309–316). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7).
* Both standards were published under the license of Creative Commons.
Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors /COPE. 2011. 11 p. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct
- Retraction Guidelines / COPE. 2009. 6 p. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf;
- Hames I. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers /COPE. March 2013. V.1. 5 p. Available at:
- Elsevier Peer Review /Elsevier. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review
- Albert T., Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. In: COPE Report 2003, Рp. 32–34. Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12.pdf (http://www.morphology.dp.ua/_pub/MORPHO-2011-05-01/11reddnd.pdf) (in Ukrainian);
- Materials and principles adopted at the First World Conference on Research Integrity (Lisbon, September 16–19, 2007), the Second World Conference on Research Integrity (Singapore, July 22–24, 2010), Singapore Statement on Research Integrity https://wcrif.org/guidance/singapore-statement, the Third World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013), Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations https://wcrif.org/montreal-statement/file, the Fourth World Conference on Research Integrity (Rio de Janeiro, May 31-June 3, 2015, https://wcrif.org/wcri2015, the Fifth World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, May 28–31, 2017) https://wcrif.org/wcri2017
- Wager E. Kleinert S. on behalf of COPE Council. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 5th March 2012. www.publicationethics.org Available at:
1. Design of the manuscript of the article in accordance with the requirements of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing".
2. Submission of the article manuscript and the license agreement to the editorial board of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing":
– by mail or courier service to the editorial board: 79020, Pid Hololskom St., 19, Room 222, Lviv, Ukraine;
– submit the documents personally to the editorial board: 79020, Pid Hololskom St., 19, Room 222, Lviv, Ukraine.
3. The author (several authors), who submits the manuscript of the article to the editorial office of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing", agrees with all requirements for the design, submission of the article manuscript, verification for plagiarism, the process of reviewing the article manuscript and bears full responsibility in case of violation of these requirements.
SCHEME OF THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERATION, REVIEWING
AND PUBLISHING OF THE MATERIALS
The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate the cases of unfair practices in scientific research and ensure the coordination and the balance of interests of authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers, and the institution in which the research has been conducted, the publishing houses and the scientific communities.
The responsibility for the violation of copyright and non-compliance with applicable standards in the material of the article belongs to the author. The responsibility for verifying the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations, and the scientific and practical level of the article belongs to the author and the reviewer.
1. All manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing" are under compulsory reviewing procedure. By submitting the manuscript to the editor, the authors agree with the reviewing process.
By submitting the article's manuscript, the authors can nominate independent reviewers for their work, as well as ask for removal of not more than two scientists or laboratories from the list of reviewers because of a possible conflict of interest.
The editorial board understands such wishes, but reserves the right to appoint the reviewers capable of the most skilled analysis of the manuscript of the article.
2. All manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing" must comply with the requirements for the publication of manuscripts.
3. The submitted manuscript of the article shall be registered by the secretary at the moment of receiving of the printed copy by mail or electronic version by e-mail in the registration book, indicating the date, the title, the author's name, the place of work of the authors. Articles are assigned an individual registration number.
4. The secretary sends all manuscripts of articles submitted for the publication in the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing", checks for the plagiarism in accordance with the approved Regulation. The secretary informs the editor-in-chief of the collection of scientific works "Computer Technologies of Printing" about the level (percentage) of the uniqueness of the manuscript of the article and provides an expanded electronic report on the checking results. The results of checking for academic plagiarism are taken into account when the editorial board makes a decision to admit the manuscript of the article for publishing.
5. The editor-in-chief and the secretary of the editorial board make a preliminary evaluation of the submitted manuscripts on the compliance of the material with the requirements for the format, profile and subjects of the journal, the presence of plagiarism.
6. Based on the results of the preliminary review, the manuscript may be rejected by the editor-in-chief and/or the editorial board without reviewing if they contain plagiarism, they do not correspond to the profile and subjects of the journal, do not meet the requirements for the authors, do not correspond to the ethics of publications accepted in the collections of scientific works.
7. The results of the preliminary review that make it impossible to accept the manuscript or it requires revision and re-submission, shall be reported to the author by e-mail.
8. The period of preliminary review of the manuscript must not exceed two weeks.
9. After the preliminary review, by the editors' decision, the submitted manuscripts are directed to reviewing. The manuscripts are reviewed by the editorial board members and/or third-party independent experts, in accordance with the principle of objectivity and from the standpoint of higher international academic quality standards.
10. The editor-in-chief may appoint the review of the article by one of the members of the editorial board most closely related to the topic of the scientific area (single-blind review).
11. The secretary is preparing a so-called "blind manuscript" for blind reviewing so that it is impossible to identify the author(s) of the manuscript of the article.
12. The editorial board involves the reviewers (doctors or candidates of sciences, including experts-practitioners). All reviewers must be recognized as the experts in the subject matter of the reviewing materials and have publications on the relevant subject of the reviewing article.
13. If the article has come to the editorial board from the editor-in-chief, then the deputy editor-in-chief is responsible for the procedure of reviewing.
14. The editor-in-chief and/or the editorial board decides to send an article for reviewing to an expert who works in this area and has relevant scientific works on this subject. The secretary sends a letter asking for reviewing together with the manuscript of the article and the recommended form of reviewing.
15. The reviewer must review the sent manuscript from 1 week up to 2 months from the date of receiving (in the agreement with the secretary of the editorial board). The reviewer must either provide a motivated rejection about the manuscript reviewing in case of conflict of interest or other significant reasons, or send an e-mail with a prepared review within the specified timeframe.
16. The reviewer must strictly observe the ethical obligations of reviewers. The manuscript reviewing s is done confidentially.
17. The purpose of reviewing is to obtain the most objective evaluation of the manuscripts for the publication, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article materials and determines its compliance with the requirements of the journal.
18. The review of the article manuscript should contain an expert evaluation on the following criteria: whether the content of the article corresponds to its title; the relevance of the research subject; its practical value and scientific significance, the theoretical and methodological level of the article, the expediency of the publication of the article, taking into account the references previously published on this issue; the presentation of the material (language, style, categories and expressions used) and specific recommendations for their improvement.
At the end of the review, based on the analysis, the reviewer should give a conclusion on the possibility of the article publication:
1 –to accept the article for publishing;
2 – to accept the article with minor corrections;
3 –to review the article again after substantial rearranging;
4 – to reject the article. In case of a negative evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewer must substantiate his conclusions explicitly.
5 – to reject the article. The subject of the paper does not correspond to the specifics of the journal.
19. At the regular meeting of the editorial board on the basis of the received reviews on the article, the following solutions can be approved:
a) to accept the article for publishing;
b) to send the text of the review to the author with the suggestion to make the necessary changes and corrections to the article or to respond to the comments of the reviewer reasonably;
c) to send the text of the review to the author with the suggestion to rearrange the article, therefore the revised article is submitted for re-reviewing;
d) in case of a negative conclusion of the reviewer on the publication of the article and the same decision of the editorial board, the author shall receive the motivated rejection with the indicated reasons for such a decision. An article is not submitted for re-reviewing.
The text of the review is sent to the authors by e-mail without a signature and the indication of the surname, position, place of work of the reviewers.
The editorial board secretary reports the authors about the decisions within 5 business days by e-mail.
20. The term for making the changes, corrections and rearranging of the manuscript of the article is not more than one month. The authors must make all necessary corrections in the final version of the manuscript and return the corrected electronic version to the editorial board with an enclosed letter to the reviewer. If the article is sent with the expiration of this term, the date of its receiving by the editorial board is changed with making the corresponding changes in the registration book.
21. The secretary receives and analyzes the corrected articles by the authors in accordance with the comments of reviewers and the editorial board, sends the corrected article and the letter to the reviewers.
22. At the meeting of the editorial board on the basis of the articles prepared by the secretary (the corrected version of the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewer, a letter to the reviewers, the results of re-reviewing) the final decision on the rejection, rearranging or acceptance of the article is made. If the reviewer, when re-reviewing, makes a similar decision (the impossibility of accepting an article without revision), the article is considered rejected and is no longer a subject to review by the editorial board of the collection of scientific works.
23. In case when the reviewers' decisions regarding the manuscript are mutually exclusive (accept/reject), the editorial board addresses them and considers all comments together to agree their positions on further publication of this material. If the decision can not be made, the editorial board appoints an independent expert. The final decision is made by the editorial board.
24. The authors have the right to appeal the decision of the reviewer and send an appeal to the editorial board in the format "reviewer's comment – author's answer". This document will be sent to the reviewer and the editorial board will make its decision on the manuscript. If the decision cannot be made, the editors appoint an independent expert.
25. The final decision on the expediency of the publication is made on the basis of the expert evaluation of reviewers, taking into account the relevance of the submitted materials of the thematic focus of the magazine, their scientific significance and relevance, by the editorial board and the editor-in-chief.
26. The editorial board informs the author by e-mail about its decision within a month with the presentation of a copy of the negative review (reviews).
27. After the manuscript is accepted, it goes through professional editing, editing of the English language, proofreading done by authors, making the final corrections. Only after the final agreement with the author(s) of all issues regarding the content of the material, the article is considered accepted for the publication.
28. At the meeting of the editorial board, the issue of including the article in the journal is considered. Considering this issue, the editorial board takes the date of receiving from the author(s) of the last agreed electronic version of the manuscript of the article. The subsequent replacement of text, graphics, or tables is unacceptable. The priority of the publication of articles is established in accordance with the editorial plan of the journal publication.
29. The editorial board of the collection of scientific works guarantees the confidentiality of all stages of filing, reviewing and preprinting related to the manuscript, in particular the information on its receiving, the content, the reviewing process, comments of the reviewers, the decisions made. The editorial board does not disclose the above information to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
30. The authors undertake, regardless of whether the article was published or not, not to distribute their correspondence with the editors of the collection of scientific works among third parties, not to post reviews, comments of the editorial board, the reviewers on any information resources without the consent of the publisher or the editorial board.
31. The originals of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the collection of scientific works for 3 years from the moment of their signing by the reviewer.
32. The manuscripts of articles accepted for the publication are not returned to the author.
33. The manuscripts of articles not accepted for the publication, together with the text of the motivated rejection, are returned to the author. One copy of the rejected manuscript is left in the archive.