Scientific Journal of Astana IT University is a peer-reviewed journal that is guided by international standards of scientific publication, strictly adheres to the policy of ethics and principles of good scientific practice. The journal adheres to the Code of Conduct and standards of good practice developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is also guided by the practice and recommendations adopted by leading international journals.
1. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Authorship
The authors must ensure that all participants meet the established criteria of authorship. Authorship should be limited to those who participated in making a significant contribution to the research, partaking in the compilation or critical review of the manuscript, approving the final version and accepting responsibility for the integrity of the work.
Authors should carefully review the list and order of authors before submitting the manuscript and obtain permission from all co-authors to send it to an agreed journal.
If there are parties who are not authors and make a significant contribution to the study, appropriate acknowledgement and appreciation should be expressed.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must submit original works that have not been previously published. Plagiarism in any form is prohibited and considered to be unethical behavior. It is necessary to provide an appropriate reference when citing the other research results. Authors need to avoid the possibility of redundant and duplicate publications in order to preserve the integrity of scientific results. Redundant publications include sending one study to multiple publications by dividing parts and self-plagiarism, whereas duplicate publications involve the practice of sending the same study to two or more journals.
Data Integrity and Confidentiality
The authors must provide accurate data and ensure that it is properly documented. If it is necessary to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the research results, the authors should provide the initial data and materials at the request of the editor.
When using confidential data or proprietary information, or government-important information, authors must follow ethical and legal standards.
Public dissemination of the contents of a review or editorial correspondence is considered improper conduct.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Authors should disclose all potential conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, or institutional links that may be perceived as affecting the research results or its interpretation. This includes, but is not limited to, financial sponsorship from commercial organisations, connections with organizations that may gain or lose from publication or personal relations that may influence the author’s work.
Authors should distinctly specify all sources of funding for their research, including grants, sponsorship, or financial contributions from external entities. They should also clearly explain the role of these funding sources in research, data collection and analysis, results interpretation, if applicable.
Ethical Compliance
By conducting research involving individuals, animals or confidential data, authors must adhere to ethical standards and regulations, considering the protection of the rights, dignity, and confidentiality of participants. Respect for the individual and justice must be respected throughout the entire research process.
Authors should ensure that all required ethical approvals and authorizations are obtained before commencing the research. For study involving confidential data, it is necessary to acquire the appropriate consent from the participants, and data processing must comply with laws and regulations on privacy (for example, GDPR, HIPAA). The authors are fully responsible for ensuring that the conducted research complies with ethical and legal requirements to protect the integrity of the research and the well-being of the participants.
2. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
Confidentiality
Manuscripts and related proceedings submitted to journal should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not be responsible for disclosing any information about the manuscript to anyone but the Editorial Office. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using unpublished material for professional or personal purposes as their own credentials, as the transmission of data, figures to parties without authorization of the author violates confidentiality.
Scientific Journal of Astana IT University uses double-blind peer review process. Reviewers should be assured that they do not reveal their identity to the authors in comments, suggestions, or metadata of the document.
Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers should be goal-oriented, courteous, and constructive. Criticism should be directed at the manuscript and not at the authors to avoid personal attacks or unprofessional remarks.
The manuscript should be evaluated based on its scientific excellence, originality, rigorousness of methodology, clarity, and journal relevance. The evaluation should not be influenced by the author’s country of origin, ethnic background, or gender.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are required to declare any possible conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. If a conflict of interest exists – e.g., co-authorship with authors, employment at the same institution, or – reviewers should recuse themselves from participation in the review process or decision-making.
Timeliness
Reviewers should accept invitations to review only if they can complete the review within the specified timeframe. Failure to meet deadlines may disrupt the publication process.
If unforeseen circumstances or obstacles prevent completion on time, reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office and request an extension of the deadline or suggest alternative reviewers.
Ethical Considerations
Reviewers must report any evidence of plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations found in the manuscript.
Reviewers must have relevant expertise, a recognized academic or professional background, and a formal degree, typically a PhD, in the field of the submitted manuscript. Experience in peer-reviewed publications is essential.
Reviewers who agree to review a manuscript are expected to fulfill the following conditions:
- Evaluate the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, methodology, and relevance.
- Submit detailed and constructive review reports to the editorial office.
- Suggest alternative reviewers if unable to review a manuscript.
- Adhere to the ethical and professional standards of peer review as outlined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
3. ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
Editorial Independence
Editors must adhere to the principle of editorial independence. All decisions made when reviewing a manuscript should be made merely on the basis of scientific merit, compliance with the journal’s thematic scope and its policies. The personal interests of editors, authors or reviewers, as well as outside influence from commercial structures, sponsors, or organizations should not affect decisions regarding the manuscript.
The Editorial Board is responsible for maintaining an independent and transparent decision-making practice. They must evaluate materials based on their scientific rigor, originality, importance and relevance to the scope of the journal.
To avoid possible bias, Editors should declare any conflicts of interest and decline the request to work with manuscripts where such conflicts may exist.
Confidentiality
Confidentiality is a fundamental ethical commitment of Editors. They bear fool responsibility for ensuring the strict confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts including the identities of authors and reviewers, and related correspondence.
Editors should not share any details regarding submitted manuscripts to anyone except for the participants of the editorial process including author, reviewers, editorial board. Unpublished content from proposed manuscripts should not be shared or used by editors or reviewers for personal or professional purposes without author’s specific written consent.
All discussions and communication content concerning reviews and editorial process should be treated as confidential. This information should not be shared outside of the editorial process, unless agreed upon by all stakeholders or required for ethical or legal reasons.
Conflict of Interest
Editors must identify, reveal, and appropriately govern any conflicts of interest that may compromise the integrity and independence of the editorial decision-making process.
Editors should fully disclose any personal, business, scholarly or professional relations that may lead to conflict of interest with the authors, organizations, or sponsors involved in the submitted paper.
Editors must guarantee that their decisions are made based merely on the scientific significance of a paper, its compliance with the scope of journal and publication norms.
If the Editor submits an article written by himself/herself and related to products or services in which the editor is interested, the editor should refrain from the editorial process and decision-making.
Decision-Making
Fair, transparent and timely editorial decision-making is an integral part of ethical editorial practice. Editors’ decisions must be made based merely on the scientific value and relevance of the submitted materials. Manuscript review should be efficient, ensuring that authors receive relevant and timely notifications about the submission status. All the decisions about acceptance, revision and rejection of paper must be supported by constructive feedback. The decision-making process must be properly documented to ensure accountability and integrity of the journal.
Ethical Oversight
Editors bear full responsibility for identifying and resolving ethical issues in the publication process, including alleged research misconduct, plagiarism, data falsification, conflicts of interest. Unethical conduct identified should be investigated impartially, in accordance with the journal’s ethical principles and policies. Editors should also collaborate with authors, reviewers and institutions to ensure ethical norms and avoid potential misconduct.
Actions in case of violation of publication ethics
If there is a suspicion that the reviewer has appropriated the author’s idea or data, the algorithm is based on the COPE scheme «What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data».
If there are suspicions of ethical issues with the submitted manuscript, the course of action is based on the COPE scheme «What to do if you suspect an ethical problem».