CC BY
17
IZJAVA VOJNOTEHNICKOG GLASNIKA O ETICKOM POSTUPANJU
Objavljivanje clanaka nakon strucne recenzije osnovna je delatnost nauc-nog casopisa Vojnotehnicki glasnik. Neophodno je postici saglasnost o etickim nacelima u postupcima svih ucesnika prilikom objavljivanja clanaka, od autora, Redakcije casopisa i strucnih recenzenata do izdavaca.
Obaveze Redakcije Vojnotehnickog glasnika
Redakcija Vojnotehnickog glasnika odgovorna je za donosenje odluke koji ce od prispelih clanaka biti odabran za objavljivanje.
Redakcija treba da postupa u skladu s politikom Uredivackog odbora Vojnotehnickog glasnika kao i u skladu sa zakonskim propisima koji se odnose na klevetu, krsenje autorskih prava i plagijate. Redakcija moze da se konsultuje sa clanovima Uredivackog odbora ili recenzentima pri donosenju odluke.
Redakcija procenjuje sadrzaj rukopisa nezavisno od rase, pola, polne ori-jentacije, religijskih uverenja, etnickog porekla, politickih uverenja i drzavne pri-padnosti autora.
U svom radu, prema preporuci Centra za evaluaciju u obrazovanju i nauci (CEON), Redakcija koristi elektronski sistem uredivanja ASEESTANT, koji omo-gucava transparentnost i javnost rada, podrazumevajuci punu odgovornost za prihvatanje i objavljivanje clanka.
Pre slanja na recenziju Redakcija proverava sadrzaj rukopisa na plagijari-zam, koriscenjem servisa iThenticate (CrossRef i CrossCheck).
Niko iz uredivacke kuce ne sme da otkrije nijednu informaciju o pristiglom rukopisu ikome, osim autoru, recenzentima, potencijalnim recenzentima, drugim savetnicima uredivacke kuce i izdavacu, prema potrebi.
Neobjavljen materijal iz pristiglih rukopisa ne sme da se koristi za istrazi-vacki rad uredivaca, osim sa izricitim pismenim odobrenjem autora.
Obaveze recenzenata
Strucni recenzent pomaze Redakciji u donosenju odluke, a posredstvom kontakata sa autorima preko Redakcije moze da pomaze i autorima na pobolj-savanju teksta rada.
Ukoliko izabrani recenzent smatra da nije dovoljno kvalifikovana da izvrsi recenziju istrazivanja u rukopisu ili je pak sprecen da zavrsi i dostavi recenziju u dogovorenom roku, o tome treba blagovremeno da obavesti Redakciju.
Svaki rukopis prihvacen na recenziju mora da se tretirati kao poverljiv dokument. Ne sme se pokazivati trecim licima niti diskutovati sa njima, osim kada to odobri Redakcija.
Recenzija treba da bude objektivna. Neprihvatljiva je licna kritika autora. Recenzenti treba jasno da obrazloze svoje stavove i potkrepe ih argumentima.
Recenzenti treba da identifikuju relevantne postojece radove koje autor nije citirao. Svaka prethodno javno saopstena tvrdnja ili argument treba da budu pro-praceni odgovarajucim citatom. Duznost recenzenta je da skrene paznju uredni-ku na znacajna poklapanja ili slicnost rukopisa sa vec objavljenim radom, ukoliko o tome ima licna saznanja.
Informacije i ideje do kojih se doslo strucnom recenzijom poverljivog su ka-raktera i ne smeju se koristiti za sopstvene potrebe. Recenzenti ne bi trebalo da primaju rukopise koji ih dovode u sukob interesa na osnovu konkurencije, zajed-nickog rada ili drugih odnosa s bilo kojim autorom, kompanijom ili institucijom povezanim s radom.
Obaveze autora
Kada autori pisu o originalnom istrazivanju treba precizno da prikazu oba-vljeni rad i da objektivno izloze njegov znacaj. Podaci treba da budu precizno navedeni. Clanak treba da sadrzi dovoljno detalja i referenci da bi mogao da se reprodukuje. Lazne ili namerno netacne tvrdnje predstavljaju neeticko postupa-nje i neprihvatljive su.
Autori treba da obezbede neobradene podatke u vezi sa clankom i pruze ih na uvid Redakciji, kao i javni pristup tim podacima, ako je to moguce, i da, u svakom slucaju, budu spremni da sacuvaju te podatke u razumnom roku posle objavljivanja.
Autori treba da napisu potpuno originalne radove, a ako su koristili radove i/ili formulacije drugih, onda to treba da navedu na odgovarajuci nacin.
U principu, autori bi trebalo da objave rukopis koji se sustinski bavi istim istrazi-vanjem samo u jednom casopisu ili primarnoj publikaciji. Slanje istog rukopisa u vise redakcija casopisa u isto vreme predstavlja neeticko ponasanje i neprihvatljivo je.
Obavezno je da autor navede radove koje je koristio u pisanju rukopisa, kao i da citira publikacije koje su uticale na njegov rad.
Autorstvo treba da bude ograniceno na one koji su znacajno doprineli ideji, njenom oblikovanju, izvodenju ili interpretaciji u datom istrazivanju. Svi koji su znacajno doprineli radu treba da budu navedeni kao koautori. Ako su pojedinci bili bitni u pojedinim aspektima istrazivackog projekta, treba im u zahvalnici odati priznanje za doprinos.
Autor treba da se postara da svi koautori budu navedeni kao takvi, kao i da medu navedenim nema onih koji to ne zasluzuju. Autorova duznost je da svi koautori vide i odobre finalnu verziju rada, kao i da odobre njegovo objavljivanje.
Ako se u istrazivanju pojavljuju hemijska jedinjenja, postupci ili oprema koji su opasni po zdravlje ljudi ili zivotinja, autor to mora jasno da naznaci u rukopisu.
Svaki autor treba da navede u rukopisu sve vrste finansijskih i ostalih zna-cajnih konflikata interesa koji bi mogli da uticu na rezultate ili interpretaciju nje-govog rada. Svi izvori finansijske podrske treba da budu takode navedeni.
Kada autor otkrije materijalnu gresku ili netacnost u svom objavljenom radu, njegova je duznost da odmah obavesti Redakciju casopisa ili izdavaca i da saraduje sa Redakcijom pri povlacenju ili korigovanju rada.
(J328)
PUBLICATION ETHICS STATEMENT
The publication of an article in this peer reviewed journal is an essential model for the scientific journal Military Technical Courier. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Duties of the Military Technical Courier editor
The editor of the Military Tecnical Courier is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor should be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with the members of the editorial board or reviewers in making this decision.
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Following the recommendations of the CEON Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES), the editor applies the electronic editing system ASEESTANT which enables transparency and public access to work and accepts a full responsibility for the acceptance and publishing of articles.
Before sending articles for peer reviews, the editor checks the content of the submitted manuscripts for plagiarism using the iThenticate service (CrossRef and CrossCheck).
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of reviewers
A peer reviewer assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
(J330)
