The editorial policy of the journal
The editorial office of the journal “The Oncology and Radiology of Kazakhstan” is directed in own employment by the Code “The responsibility of the publication of researches: the international standards for editors”, the recommendations of the Committee on the ethics of publications (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)), the declaration of the association of the scientific editors and publishers, the international combinations of editors and publishers.
Introduction. The editorial office of the journal is guided by the principles of scientific character, objectivity, professionalism, impartiality, complies the principles of the ethic of the publication in relationship to: readers of the journal, authors of the papers, organizations sponsoring researches and publications, reviewers of publications. The editorial office requires from the authors to abide standarts of the ethic scientific publications, due to responsibility for the published material (except advertising-information materials). The editorial office has the right to accept or reject papers for publication in the journal, based on the judgment of reviewers. The final decision about the publication of the paper make members of the editorial office and the chief editor of the journal.
1. The responsibility of the contenting of the journal.The editorial office is responsible for the published material (except adverticing and informational materials), observes the procedure and the policy of the redaction in order to preserving the scientific integrity of publications and ensure the quality of the materials that are published.
2. editorial independence and integrity.For receiving fair and impartial decisions, the editorial office upholds the principle of editorial independence and objectivity.
2.1 Separating decision making division from commercial considerations.
The editorial office is responsible for their decisions, follows the rules of the separation of commercial activities from the process of editing and the coming-up decision. The editorial office takes over actively participation in the pricing policy of the publisher, and strive aim to a wide availability of the material which they post.
2.2 The editor`s relationship to the journal publisher or owner.
The publisher of the journal should not participate in assuming decisions on the content of commercial or political considerations.
2.3 The journal metrics and assuming of decisions. The editorial office should not try to influence the rating of the own journal by artificially increasing any metric of the journal. Impractical demand to references that the papers of this journal will be included, except for genuine scientific reasons. The editorial office should ensure that papers will be reviewed on purely scientific grounds without exerting any pressure on the authors.
3.1 The copyrighted material.Editors should protect the confidentiality of the authors ‘ material and remind reviewers to follow this. Editorial office should share presented documents submitted with editors of other journals only with the consent of the authors or in the case of alleged illegal actions. Editors, as a rule, are not required to provide material to lawyers for court cases. The editors as a rule, shouldt provide no one information about the status of the article except authors. However, in the case of investigation of falsification of data, plagiarism and other misconduct, may be necessary to disclose the materials to third parties (e.g., members of the Academic Council, LEK, other editors, authors of publications that were used for plagiarism).
3.2 Reviewers. Reviewers are chosen by editors. Editors should protect confidentiality of reviewers if the opened system of experimental mark is not functioned. If wish open their names it should be promitted.
Total editorial policy
4. Transparency, reporting. To increase knowledge in scientific areas, it is necessary understand why particular work was done, how and by whom it was planned and the research was carried out the study and that adds to the existing knowledge. The decisive meaning for achieving such understanding have maximum transparency, full and honest reporting.
4.1 The authorship and responsibility.The author is a person has been participated in the writing of the work, in the development of its concepts, in the scientific design, the collecting of the material, the analysis and interpretation. All co-authors should accord these criterias. Authors have ethical obligations in according to publication and dissemination of results of the scientific research. All authors have to make a significant contribution to the work and be familiar with all its contents. Copyright disputes (i.e., disagreements on who should or should not be the author before or after publication) cannot be adjudicated by editorial offices and should be resolved at the institutional level or through other appropriate independent authorities for both published and unpublished works. Only after that, the editors, based on the conclusion of the Commission of the conclusions can change, for example by correcting authorship in published papers.
4.2 Conflicts of interests and roles of the funding source.The editors encourage authors to disclose relationships with industrial and financial institutions that could lead to a conflict of the interests. All funding sources should be listed by authors in the text. The editors may require from the authors any financial and non-financial conflicts of interests.
4.3 Reporting and accountability of reporting.One of the important of editor`s responsibilities to sustenance of a high standard in the scientific literature. Editors should ensure all published papers contribute a substantial contribution to their areas. Editors should discourage so-called “cutoff undesirable elements”, duplication or redundant publication unless if it is not acceptable to all (e.g., the publication in another language with cross-references), and to require from the authors to place their work in context of the previous works (that is, to indicate why this work was necessary/done, what this work adds or why a replication of previous work, and what readers should take from it). The journal may require from the authors in those areas where it is standarded, to submit protocols or study plans and evidence of compliance with the relevant of the principles. The accountability is important for editors, reviewers and readers to understand the actual research. The editors check of the subject of the plagiarism, duplicate or having excess publications with helping of the programmatic provision anti-plagiat
5.The response to critical remarks.
The recall on published researches by another researchers and is impossible part of the scientific discussion is welcome and is important part of the scientific discussion.
5.1 The ensuring of the integrity of the publication correction.If in the published works to readers, authors, editors identified a genuine error, is correction. Online version of the magazine can be corrected with the date of the correction and a link to print a correction. If it is determined that the execution of the research (or part thereof) is invalid, will be excluded to explain the reasons for the exception.
5.2 The ensuring the integrity of the publication is the following up of misconduct of research or publication. If the readers, reviewers or other persons are identified serious problems associated with illegal actions or behavior that editors should contact the authors (ideally all authors) and get her to respond to these problems. If the answer is not satisfied, the editorial offices have taken measures at the institutional level. In some cases when the problem is very serious and the published work may affect clinical practice or public health, editors consider informing readers about these issues. Editors can make the decision to withdraw the article, even if the investigation by the institution or national body does not recommend you do. Editors respond to allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication can be assessed by the editors. Editors may require investigation by the institution or other body, if not satisfied with the explanations of the authors. Retracted articles should be saved, but they must be clearly marked as revoked.
5.3 The scientific discussions.The editorial office provides a mechanism by which readers can discuss papers, recieve critical comments and to discuss (via print or online). Authors can contribute their contribution to discussion and criticism as appropriate.
6. The peer-review process. The editors provide fair and expert peer mark. All publications, except advertising and editorial content are reviewed (open, blind, double blind). The review is conducted in according to the procedure of the reviewing of articles adopted in the wording.
6.1 The decision of reviewing. Editors may reject the article without an expert assessment, if it is deemed invalid. The decision not to send the document for expert evaluation should only be based on the academic content of the document.
6.2 The interaction with the reviewers.Editors attract the reviewing experts with sufficient experience and should avoid conflicts of the interest. The opinion of the reviewer must be received in a timely manner. Reviewers should be informed about the editorial policy of the journal. Reviewers should inform the editors about any conflict of interested at the first opportunity, for decision about the possibility of an objective assessment. Some conflicts of interests can disqualify a reviewer. Editors should indicate to the reviewers the confidentiality of the material. Editors should have a mechanism for monitoring the quality and timeliness of expert evaluation and to provide feedback to reviewers.
6.3 Misconduct of reviewers.Editors should follow the work of the reviewers to prevent breaches of confidentiality, to avoid conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), delay expert evaluation. Allegations of serious misconduct, such as plagiarism, should be taken at the institutional level.
6.4 The interaction with authors is based on the principles of courtesy, fairness, objectivity, honesty, transparency.The editors convey to the author all reviewers ‘ comments. In exceptional cases, it may be possible part of the review, if it is, for example, contains libelous or insulting remarks. The final decision is communicated to the authors. If the paper is rejected, the authors can appeal. The editors, however, are not obliged to reverse its decision.
7. The editorial decision-making process.
The editors make the decision on publication, so the process should be fair, equitable, and in according to the academic vision of the journal.
7.1 The editorial processes. Editorial processes are described in information for authors what is expected from the authors, what types of work will be published, like the documents are handled in the journal. All editors are familiar with the policies, vision and scope. The final responsibility for all decisions is rested with the chief editor.
7.2 The editorial conflicts Of interests should not affect decisions about publications (for example, if they work or in the same facility, if they own share in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors).