Publication Ethics

The Editorial board of the AgroChemistry and Soil Science in its activities to comply with international ethical rules is guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, www.publicationethics.org), Instructions of the European Association of Science Editors (www.ease.org.uk) and the standards declared by Elsevier (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit) https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk.
 The ethics of the AgroChemistry and Soil Science includes a list of ethical obligations of editors, reviewers and authors. Compliance with these requirements is a guarantee of the rights and responsibilities of all participants in the publishing process.

Ethical obligations of the authors

The author, realizing his responsibility to the scientific community for the quality of the publication, must guarantee the following:

  • the manuscript was created specifically for publication in AgroChemistry and Soil Science, was not published earlier and was not sent simultaneously to other journals;
  • the manuscript was created on the basis of the results of the author's own research, and the conclusions are based on a personal impartial position;
  • data is reliable, obtained as a result of original research work, not falsified or borrowed.
  • regarding data not obtained by the author himself, the sources of information are clearly indicated;
  • cited only those publications, ideas or results of which were used in the process of setting tasks, or in the analysis of the results obtained, as well as those that influenced the definition of the nature of the work and are necessary for understanding the essence of the work. The list of cited publications is complete and is formed according to the Instructions for authors AgroChemistry and Soil Science;
  • the manuscript does not contain excessive borrowing, unformulated quotations, paraphrasing, appropriation of rights to the results of other people's research;
  • all persons who participated in the research are mentioned in the manuscript as co-authors or they are thanked; all co-authors saw the final edition of the manuscript, agree with its publication and are responsible for the data, conclusions and citing sources;
  • information obtained privately, in the course of conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, is not used in the manuscript without the explicit permission of the researcher from whom this information was obtained;
  • in the manuscript of the review article, the author relies on his own research (analysis) and personal understanding of the compiled literary material;
  • the manuscript clearly identifies any hazards and risks associated with conducting research;
  • the author undertakes to inform the editorial board of any conflict of interest if it arises during (or as a result of) the preparation of the manuscript;
  • in the process of preparing the manuscript, the author was guided by the rules for authors AgroChemistry and Soil Science;
  • the author should, in the case of a significant error or inaccuracy in an already published work, to notify urgently the editor-in-chief of the ACSS and cooperate with him to refute or correct the article in the next issue.втор, усвідомлюючи свою відповідальність перед науковим співтовариством щодо якості публікації, повинен гарантувати таке:

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The review is the main tool for determining the quality of the manuscript, improving the author's text, and is the main argument for deciding whether to publish. The most important thing in the work of a reviewer is his professionalism and impartiality and confidentiality. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and through editorial communication with the author can help the author improve the article.

Reviewers should adhere to the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers.

The reviewer can be a scientist with experience in research work on the subject of the evaluated manuscript.

The reviewer cannot be the co-author of the peer-reviewed work, the supervisor of the author (co-authors) and an employee of the department where the author (co-authors) works.

The reviewer must as objectively as possible evaluate the presented experimental or theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and also determine the compliance of the work with scientific and linguistic standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

If the reviewer doubts his competence in any of the key aspects of the work, or he/she has a conflict of interest with the author or the organization that submitted the manuscript for consideration, or he/she does not have enough time to familiarize himself/herself with the work, he/she is obliged to inform the editor-in-chief and refuse peer review.

The reviewer must maintain confidentiality and not discuss the content of the manuscript with persons not involved in the publication workflow, and also not use unpublished data contained in the work without the official permission of the authors.

The reviewer should take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript in question is related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript to the editorial board without a review, indicating a conflict of interest.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities between the reviewed manuscript and another published work. In the case when the reviewer is sure that any part of the text, illustrations, conclusion or argument has already been published earlier, that is, there is plagiarism or verbatim copying of the author's earlier works (self-plagiarism), he/she must inform the editor. Any statement by the reviewer that an observation, conclusion, or suggestion was previously known must be supported by an appropriate quotation.

The reviewer should point to relevant published articles on the subject of the manuscript, which the authors should cite, but not cited.

The reviewer is obliged to clearly argue his comments, which must be accompanied by an appropriate link.

The reviewer should be aware that a delay in sending a review to the editorial office might be regarded as an improper gaining of a competitive advantage.

Ethical obligations of the editors / Editorial board

The activities of the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board and staff of the editorial office of the AgroChemistry and Soil Science are based on the observance of moral standards in relations with authors and reviewers.

All manuscripts submitted to the collection undergo thematic selection and scientific review.

The editorial board has the right to reject the manuscript or return it for revision.

The editor-in-chief and the editorial board evaluate the manuscript impartially, solely according to its scientific content - regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status, political views and place of work of the authors.

Decisions on publication are made on the basis of scientific reviews and conclusions of editorial board members regarding compliance of the submitted work with generally accepted criteria, tasks and purpose of the collection and importance for the scientific community. The process of expert evaluation of manuscripts should be as objective as possible. The final decision on the possibility of publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief and/or the editorial board.

The editor-in-chief and the editorial board should not have a conflict of interest with respect to the manuscripts they reject or accept, and they should also avoid involving in the review process those scholars who may have a conflict of interest with the author.

If any of the editors/members of the editorial board becomes aware of their own conflict of interests already during the review of the manuscript, they must inform other members of the board, withdraw from the review process and transfer their powers to another editor/member of the editorial board.

The editors / editorial board maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript review process and do not allow information to be disclosed outside the circle of persons involved in the publication workflow. None of the persons familiar with the content of the submitted works can use the information provided there without the official permission of the authors.

The conclusions and proposals of scientific reviewers (without identifying the identity of the reviewer) and the editor are sent only to the author's email address for use in correcting the manuscript.

Neither the editors nor the editorial board are responsible for the opinions expressed by the authors and views on the interpretation of the research results described in the manuscript of the article.

Unpublished materials disclosed in the manuscript may not be used in the editors' own research without the written permission of the author.