Publication Ethics

The Editor’s Office of the Journal "The Herald of Orthopedics, Traumatology, and Prosthetics" supports the basic standards of publication ethics of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. The following phenomena are inadmissible for the Editor's Office:

- plagiarism – the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own;

- duplicate publication – submission of the same paper for publication in more than one journal;

- conflict of interests – hiding information which may directly or indirectly harm unbiased attitude to the article;

- conflict of authors – an intentional perversion of a fact of a scholar's participation in the research reported;

- fragmentation of the results – fragmentation of research in such a way to transfer one significant article into several different papers;

- research fraud – fabrication (making up research data and results, and recording or reporting them), falsification (manipulating research materials, images, data, equipment, or processes).

A reviewer’s ethical undertakings
1. The Editor's Office strives to meet the high ethical standards of scholarly researches, so the reviews must have the proper scientific level, consistent with the ethical requirements of this type of scientific activity.

2. A reviewer can refuse from reviewing handwriting if his/her qualification and focus of scientific studies do not correspond to the topic of the article.

3. Since the Law of Ukraine "On Copyrights and Similar Rights" protects an author's rights for the materials submitted to the Editor's Office, it is unacceptable for a reviewer to benefit from the writings obtained for a review, any author's reasonings, or conclusions.

4. Blaming an author in plagiarism demands the reviewer's reasonable grounding of his/her comments. Any comment on plagiarism or improper quotation has to be supported by proper references.

5. A reviewer having doubts regards plagiarism, authorship, or data falsification must appeal at the Editor’s Office to demand collective consideration of such an article.

6. To meet the terms of publication, the reviewer meets the review terms provided by the Editor’s Office (regularly not exceeding seven days).