Ethics and policy

The editorial board of the Scientific journal "The Effective rabbit breeding and animal fur farming" adheres to the following rules for supporting publication ethics:

  • observance of the main principles of the publication: scientificity, objectivity, professionalism, informational support of the most significant innovative researches;
  • unconditional loyalty to all subjects of the creative process who participate in the creation of the journal;
  • use of double-blind peer review, involvement of objective, competent reviewers;
  • carrying out constant consultative work with authors aimed at fulfilling the requirements of international databases for the design and content of materials submitted for publication.

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for plagiarism and compliance with the requirements for the design of articles and literature. Scientific articles designed in accordance with the requirements of Scientific journal "The Effective rabbit breeding and animal fur farming" are admitted to the review stage, provided that the originality of the text is at least 80%.

Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal and is carried out according to the principle of double-blind (anonymous) peer review, in which the reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors, and the authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

 

Ethical obligations of editors

 

  1. The members of the editorial board, headed by the editor-in-chief, are responsible for making a decision regarding the publication of a scientific article, which is based on the principles of reliability and scientific significance of the work submitted for consideration.
  2. Editors are responsible for compliance with the requirements and recommendations in the scientific article.
  3. Editors have the right to consult with reviewers when making a final decision regarding the publication of a scientific article.
  4. The editor must consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each one appropriately, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or any other affiliation, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s).
  5. All responsibility for acceptance or rejection of the manuscript rests with the editor. A responsible and balanced approach to the performance of these duties assumes that the editor takes into account the recommendation of the reviewer of the relevant scientific field regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without peer review if the editor considers that they do not meet the profile of this publication.
  6. Confidentiality is maintained for unpublished data obtained by the editorial board in manuscripts submitted for consideration, as well as information or ideas obtained during the review.
  7. After the positive decision of the editor, the article is published in the journal and placed on the relevant electronic resources of the institution.
  8. The responsibility and rights of the editor of the journal regarding any submitted manuscript, the author of which is the editor himself, must be delegated to any of the members of the editorial board – a specialist based on the profile of the institution.
  9. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of the work published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate the publication of a corresponding notice in the next issue of the journal, indicating this error and, if possible, correcting it. This message may be written by the person who discovered this bug or by an independent author.

 

Ethical obligations of the authors

 

  1. To provide reliable results of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research.
  2. Authors must ensure the reliability of bibliographic references.
  3. The author should cite those publications that had a decisive influence on the essence of the work being taught, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reader to earlier works important for understanding this study. With the exception of reviews, citations to works not directly relevant to this issue should be minimized.
  4. An author should not publish a manuscript in which most of it is devoted to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
  5. The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication.
  6. The author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board.

 

Ethical obligations of reviewers

 

  1. Peer review helps the Editor make a decision about publication and can also help the author improve the quality of the work.
  2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he should make this known.
  3. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the authors related to the presented work.
  4. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  5. Each manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened or discussed with any persons who do not have certain authority to do so. The exception is cases when the reviewer needs someone’s special consultation.
  6. Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on.
  7. The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists that are directly related to the work under review.
  8. The reviewer must provide feedback in a timely manner.
  9. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review may not be used in personal research or references.

 

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Efficient Rabbit and Fur Animal Breeding” is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity and publication ethics and ensures a transparent, fair, and efficient procedure for handling complaints regarding potential violations.

1. Submission of a Complaint

A complaint regarding possible violations (including, but not limited to, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate or redundant publication, authorship issues, and conflicts of interest) may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, or other interested parties.

Complaints must be submitted in written form to the official email address of the editorial office and should include:

  • a clear and detailed description of the alleged violation;
  • reference(s) to the relevant manuscript or published article;
  • supporting evidence, where available.

Anonymous complaints may be considered if sufficient evidence is provided.

2. Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board:

  • registers the complaint;
  • conducts a preliminary assessment of its validity and relevance;
  • determines whether the issue falls within the journal’s scope and competence.

If necessary, independent experts may be consulted at this stage.

3. Investigation

If the complaint is deemed credible:

  • an ad hoc committee may be established, consisting of Editorial Board members and/or independent experts;
  • the author(s) will be informed and requested to provide an explanation;
  • all relevant materials, including plagiarism reports and supporting documentation, will be carefully examined.

The investigation process ensures that all parties are given an opportunity to present their position.

4. Decision-Making

Based on the findings of the investigation, the Editorial Board may take one or more of the following actions:

  • reject the complaint (if it is unfounded);
  • request corrections, clarifications, or revisions from the author(s);
  • initiate additional or repeated peer review;
  • issue an expression of concern;
  • retract the article (in cases of serious violations);
  • notify the author’s affiliated institution or other relevant bodies.

Decisions are made based on the principles of fairness, objectivity, and evidence-based evaluation.

5. Notification of Parties

All relevant parties will be informed of the final decision, including:

  • the complainant;
  • the author(s);
  • other stakeholders, if appropriate.

In cases of significant ethical violations, the journal may publish a formal notice (e.g., correction, retraction, or expression of concern) on its website.

6. Confidentiality and Impartiality

The Editorial Board ensures:

  • strict confidentiality throughout all stages of the complaint handling process;
  • impartial and unbiased evaluation of all cases;
  • avoidance of conflicts of interest by all individuals involved in the investigation.

Any member with a potential conflict of interest will be excluded from the review process.

7. Timeframe

Complaints are handled as promptly as possible. The standard timeframe for consideration is typically 30–60 calendar days, depending on the complexity of the case.

8. Compliance with International Standards

The complaint handling procedure complies with international standards in scholarly publishing and reflects best editorial practices.

The journal adheres to the principles and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ensuring integrity, transparency, and ethical responsibility at all stages of the publication process.