The Policy of Ethical Standards in the Publication and Malpractice Statement of ICAIIT

1. GENERAL TERMS

1.1. This policy sets standards of ethical behavior for the parties involved in the publication process: authors, editorial board, reviewer, and publisher. The following standards are based on generally accepted and existing policies of Journal and Publisher.
1.2. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, as the founder and editor of the scientific the Сonference Proceedings Journal, assumes obligations to control all stages of the publication process of papers and recognizes its ethical and other obligations related to the publication of papers.

2. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS OF PUBLICATIONS

2.1. Standard for access to the source research data and its storage
The author is obliged to present the source materials (data) of the research at the request of the editorial board, if the paper does not show the original data, and must be prepared to provide public access to them. The author should store this data in a reasonable time after the publication to allow their reproduction and verification.
2.2. Standard for originality (inadmissibility of plagiarism)
The author presents the paper containing the results of original research to the editorial board for reviewing. If the author of the paper used or includes an paper excerpts from others works (citations), such use must be properly executed by specifying the original source in the references to the paper. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and unacceptable behavior author.
2.3. Standard for publication
The author presents to the editorial board manuscript, unpublished, and not given to the editorial board of any other journal. The manuscript is submitted simultaneously in several journals is unethical and unacceptable. The same applies to translation paper into a foreign language.
2.4. Standard for sources confirmation
The author undertakes to specify the correct scientific and other sources that were used in the research and which have had a significant impact on the results of a research in the references. The information obtained from informal (private) sources should not be used when making a scientific paper.
2.5. Standard for manuscript authorships
All persons who have made significant contributions to the research should be listed as co-authors of the paper. The list of authors should be limited to only those persons.
The author, who presents a manuscript to the editorial board, ensures that it have all co-authors, and they all have seen and approved the final manuscript and agree to its submission to the editorial board of the scientific the Сonference Proceedings Journal for publication.
2.6. Conflict of interest policy
Authors must disclose conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation and interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the paper (grants, state programs, projects, etc.) should be disclosed and necessarily listed in the manuscript.
2.7. Standard for error correction in the published literature
If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the paper already published, the author immediately notifies the editorial board and help it in correcting the error. If the editorial board or third parties recognize the error in the paper, the author is obliged to immediately correct the error or to provide evidence of its absence.

3. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR EDITORIAL BOARD

3.1. Standard for decision to publish papers
The editorial board makes a decision on which of submitted papers, should to be published, based on the results of test for the requirements and the results of peer review. When making the decision to publish the manuscript editorial board is guided by the policy of ethical standards and does not permit the publication of papers with signs of libel, slander, plagiarism, copyright violations or conflict of interest. The final decision on publication of the paper or to its refuse accepted by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
3.2. Standard for all authors equality
Editorial board evaluates submitted manuscripts regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship, occupation, affiliation and residence, as well as its political, philosophical, religious or other views.
3.3. Privacy standards
Editorial board will not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author, the reviewer (with double-blind review), and if necessary - the publisher.
3.4. Conflict of interest policy
Editorial board ensures that the refused manuscripts will not be used in another study of the editorial staff, without the written agreement of the author. The Editorial board will refuse to review manuscripts, if it is no competitive relationship with the author or organization associated with the results of the study, or if there is a conflict of interest. Editors shall require all participants in the publication process the disclosure of competing interests.
3.5. Standard for the author unethical behavior claims consideration
Editorial board reviews promptly each claim of unethical behavior of manuscript's authors regardless of the time of receipt. Editors will take appropriate reasonable steps in respect of such claims. If the arguments of the claims are true, then the Editorial board right to refuse publication of the paper, to cease further cooperation with the author, to publish a rebuttal, and to take other necessary steps to prevent further unethical conduct by the person.

4. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWERS

4.1. Standard for reviewer contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review of the manuscript provided by the reviewer promotes the adoption of editorial decisions, and helps the author to improve the manuscript. The decisions to accept the manuscript for publication, to returned the manuscript for revision, or rejection of the publication are accepted by the editorial board based on peer review results.
4.2. Standard for reviewing deadlines
The reviewer must provide a review in time for a date specified by Editorial board. If the review and preparation of the manuscript reviews on these dates is not possible, then the reviewer should notify the Editor.
4.3. Standard for privacy by the reviewer
Manuscript submitted for review should be treated as a confidential document, regardless of the form of peer-review chosen by the journal. The reviewer may show it or discuss it with others only with the agreement of the editor-in-chief.
4.4. Standard for review objective
The reviewer shall carry out peer review of the manuscript objectively. Reviewer's personal criticism is not valid. All reviewer conclusions should be strictly based and supplied with references to authoritative sources.
4.5. Standard for sources confirmation
Reviewers should indicate the presence of sources that have influenced the results of the research, but were not given by the author. The reviewer must pay attention to the substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and the other previously published work, which is known reviewer.
4.6. Conflict of interest policy
The reviewer must not use the materials in an unpublished manuscript for his own researches without the written agreement of the author. The reviewer must refrain from reviewing the manuscript, in connection with which he has a conflict of interest because of the competitive, cooperative or other relationship with the authors or organizations related to the manuscript.

5. ADDITIONAL ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR THE СONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL

5.1. Publication standards
The decision to issue corrections, retractions, replacements, or removals is made by the editor(s) of the journal, sometimes with input from reviewers, advisory board members, or editorial board members. Editors will consult the authors of the paper in question for clarification. However, the final decision on the necessity and type of correction remains with the editors.
5.1.1. Standards for paper retraction
The integrity of published materials is paramount. Retractions are considered only when papers contain significant errors, ethical code violations, or fraudulent data. Retractions are clearly marked and linked to the original paper, which remains accessible but is clearly indicated as retracted.
Editors must determine if a retraction is required through investigation and act in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines. Following best practices, the following procedure is adopted for retracting papers:
1. A retraction note titled "Retraction: [paper Title]" signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the table of contents. In the electronic version, a link to the original paper is added.
2. The online paper is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note, with the link resolving to this screen; readers can then proceed to the paper itself.
3. The original paper is retained unchanged except for a watermark on each page of the PDF indicating that it has been retracted.
4. Any HTML version of the paper is removed.
Note that if authors retain copyright for an paper, it does not mean they automatically have the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is paramount, and COPE's Retraction Guidelines still apply in such cases.
5.1.2. Standards for paper correction
Corrections are issued to address minor errors that do not invalidate the paper’s conclusions. These include:
1. Publisher correction (erratum): Issued to notify readers of significant errors made by the journal's publishing staff, usually production errors that negatively impact the publication record, the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.
2. Author correction (corrigendum): Issued when authors identify significant errors in their work that impact the publication record, scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.
3. Addendum: An addition made by the authors to explain inconsistencies, expand on the existing work, or otherwise update the information in the original paper.
5.1.3. Standards for paper withdrawal
Withdrawal of papers is strongly discouraged and considered only for early versions of papers not yet formally published. Withdrawn papers are replaced with a notice explaining the reason for withdrawal.
5.1.4. Standards for paper removal
In rare cases, papers may be removed from the online platform if they contain defamatory content, violate legal rights, or pose a serious health threat. Metadata will be retained, and a notice of removal will be provided.
5.1.5. Standards for paper replacement
If an paper poses a serious health risk, it may be retracted and replaced with a corrected version. The retraction notice will contain a link to the new paper and the document's history.
5.2. Standards for handling complaints
Complaints regarding the policies, procedures, or actions of the journal’s editorial staff are taken seriously. Complaints should include the journal title, volume number, issue number, paper ID, paper title, and page number. All complaints are thoroughly investigated, and appropriate measures are taken to address valid concerns.

We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and quality in all our publications.