Reviewing procedure in AURA
1) If the scientific article fits the journal’s scope, the Editor-in-Chief appoints two Reviewers of recognized competence within the field of research, preferably with professor or postdoctoral degree. The reviewers must: − deliver an objective, independent opinion, − ensure no conflict of interests – they should have no personal relationships or business relations with Authors, − keep any information regarding the content and opinion confidential.
2) When the Reviewers are chosen, the Editor-in-Chief sends them a written offer with either a short description or an abstract of the article, defines range of reviews and sets a deadline.
3) If the Reviewers accept the offer, the Editorial Board provides them with a full version of the article and an obligatory peer review report.
4) Reviewers’ personal details are classified and they can be declassified only at the Author’s request and with the reviewer’s permission in case the review is negative or the article contains arguable elements. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes in its journal the full list of the Reviewers cooperating with the journal.
5) Once the review process is complete, the Reviewer delivers electronic version of the review by e-mail and the Assistant Editor: − informs the Author that the review has been submitted to the journal (when the reviewer states that the article does not require corrections or it requires only minor editorial corrections), − forwards the review with critical comments to the Author, who is encouraged to make corrections suggested by the reviewer. If the Author disagrees with certain remarks, he/she is under obligation to prepare response letter substantiating his position. − sends the revised article to the Reviewer again, if the Reviewer finds it necessary.
6) The Editorial Board makes the final decision about publishing the article based on analysis of the review and the revised version of the article that the Author has resubmitted.
7) If one of the reviews is negative, the Editor-in-Chief makes decision about rejection of the article or invites an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. When both reviews are negative, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the article.
8) The final version of the article (after making up) is sent to the Author.
9) Non-scientific articles do not need to be reviewed and they are accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief.
ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Ethics and publication malpractice statement concerning copyright materials published in SIGMA-NOT Publishing House journals (compiled basing on COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics – guidelines)
SIGMA-NOT Publishing House, as a publisher of technical and scientifical journals, is obligated to support adherence to ethical standards in copyright materials, publishing high quality materials and prevent any scientific misconduct. Adherence to ethical rules is expected equally from all participants of the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher.
The Editor evaluates papers in a fair and objective manner, with no regard to the author’s race,
gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political philosophy, ethnic or geographic origin. The Editor’s decision is made only on the basis of the article being analysed, taking into consideration its originality, scientific value, clarity, importance of the research or information for the science and technology community in a given domain.
The Editor treats all papers received form the Authors as confidential and does not disclose them to persons that are not directly participating in the publication process (authors, editors, reviewers etc.) and does not use them for their own research purposes without the Author’s written consent.
The Editor enables the Author to publish a factual discussion concerning a part of an article being reviewed. The Editor does not block the possibility of publishing negative research results. The Editor and the Editorial Board pay special attention to the applicable legal requirements concerning copyrights.
The object of peer review is to assist the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making decisions concerning the article’s publication and to possibly help the Author in correcting or improving their work.
The Reviewer should objectively evaluate if they are able to review a given article, taking into
consideration the paper’s substance and a deadline determined by the Editorial Board.
The Reviewer declines reviewing a given article if they identify a conflict of interests resulting from e. g. financial, personal or professional connections with article’s author(s), company or an institution associated with the paper.
The Reviewer treats all papers received form the Editorial Board as confidential and does not
disclose them to third parties or use them for their own research purposes without the Author’s
written consent. The Review should be formulated objectively, clearly, unambiguously, without
personal criticism. Critical notes should be supported by matter-of-fact statements.
The Reviewer should notify the Editor of any similarity of an article being reviewed to any other papers that they know.
The Author submits exclusively the original and unpublished papers, stating that they have the
rights to dispose these materials. Submitting a paper simultaneously to several publishing houses in unacceptable.
An article should be prepared with appropriate citing and present methods, research and results
clearly so that the Author’s reasoning can be followed and possible repeating of the research can be done by other researchers in a given domain. The Article should take into account the state of knowledge in a given domain, and the research results should be described and analysed extensively and objectively. If partial results have been previously published, the Author should inform the Editor and state it in the article.
The Author declares that the research data used in the publication have not been fabricated or
The article’s authorship is limited to the persons who made significant contributions to the idea,
objectives, methods, research execution and interpretation of results as well as the substantial
development of the article. All persons who made substantial contributions to the article must be listed as co-authors. The Author submitting the paper should disclose contributions of each and every author and make sure that all co-authors accept the article’s submission to the journal and the final version of the article.
The Author should inform the Editorial Board about significant errors found in the paper and
cooperate with the Editor to correct them before publication or to make a correction in form of an errata.
The Author should store raw data to make it accessible to the Editorial Board or the authorized
institutions if inquired.
The Author confirms, in justified cases, that all research were conducted in accordance with ethical and formal regulations applicable in a given domain of science (e.g. bioethics commission’s consent).
The Author should disclose information concerning financing the publication, contributions made by scientific research institutions, associations and other parties, as well as the possible conflicts of interest connected to the article.
Procedures in case of unethical practices
In case of alleged misconduct in the published or submitted article, especially in case of plagiarisms such as ghostwriting or guest authorship, the Editor takes measures to clarify the situation; the first step is to ask the Author to comment it. In case of confirmed misconduct significantly breaching the ethics, the Editor takes further action, for example: publishing an information about the discovered misconduct and informing entities in which the Author is affiliated. Any signs o fscientific misconduct are documented by the Editorial Board.