Publication ethics

Journal “Mechanics of Composite Materials and Structures” corresponds to the standards of publication ethics established by the UNESCO International Committee on Ethics publications. The document consists of three sections, the first one is addressed to the Editorial Board, the second provides recommendations for paper reviewers and the third for the publications’ authors.

Editorial Board’s Responsibilities

  1. The Editorial Board makes a decision about publication or rejection of the manuscript on the basis of its academic content solely, without discrimination on grounds of the nationality, gender or sexual orientation, religious or political views, an ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
  2. The Editorial Board at its regular meeting makes the decision about publishing, rejection, or revision of the manuscript on the background of reviewing results and after the necessary discussion.
  3. The Editorial board handles submissions for any sponsored or special issues of the Journal in the same way as other submissions, so that manuscripts are considered and accepted for publishing solely without commercial influence on their academic merit and accordance with the Publication Ethics only.
  4. The Editorial Board considers the pretensions to papers, including to the works already published and to their authors, making the collegial decision on withdrawing the paper from publication, or publishing the comments or denials to the paper already published if such a decision is necessary. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved.
  5. The Editorial Board is obliged to give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints.
  6. The Editorial Board retain the documentation associated with any such complaints.
  7. The Editorial Board guarantees that any information about the submitted manuscript, the reviews on it, and the Editorial Board discussion results are not disclosed to anyone except the reviewers, authors and Editorial Board members.
  8. The members of Editorial Board do not take advantage of the content of the scientific publication of the papers discussed in Editorial Board meetings until these papers will not be published in the Journal, and the use of these results should be accompanied by a reference to the author publication.
  9. Members of the Editorial Board are obliged to guarantee not to use in their work the results from rejected papers.
  10. The Editorial Board does not allow publication of papers containing plagiarism or signs of slander, insults, copyright infringements or rules of ethics. The same applies to cases where the authors did not want to, despite the wording of the proposals received from Editorial Board, arrange the paper in accordance with the accepted rules of manuscripts preparation.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. The Reviewer is not a qualified expert on the subject of the manuscript, working not in the same narrow scientific area of the manuscript, and being not completely familiar with the current state of the problem discussed in the manuscript should withdraw their services for that manuscript.
  2. The Reviewer is obliged to withdraw their services for the manuscript in the case of any potential conflict of interest (financial, collaborative, institutional, or other relationships between the reviewer and author).
  3. The Reviewer should evaluate the academic content of the submitted manuscript without discrimination on grounds of the nationality, gender or sexual orientation, religious or political views, an ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
  4. Any transition to personalities of the manuscript authors while reviewing is strictly prohibited.
  5. The reviewer is allowed to use the results and methods proposed in the research from the peer-reviewed paper only after the publication of this paper and only providing relevant references to the paper. Use any content of a rejected paper by the Reviewer in each own researchers is strictly prohibited.

Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors of manuscripts to be submitted to the Editorial Board are to confirm familiarity with the following rules and readiness to follow them.
  2. Authors should submit manuscripts containing clearly described elements of scientific novelty except surveys ordered by the Editorial Board.
  3. Authors should confirm/assert that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors should confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
  5. Where portions of the content of the submitted manuscript overlap with any published or submitted content, authors should acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, authors have to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content. The Editorial Board is allowed to reject any manuscript not accompanied with such copies as inappropriate with the Publication Ethics if significant overlapping is revealed.
  6. Authors should provide a brief survey of the academic literature objectively and adequately reflecting the state of the problem which is under consideration in the manuscript, in view of the major achievements of both domestic and foreign science. References to private messages are allowed only with permission of their authors.
  7. Authors are responsible for the obligatory correct citing and referencing to any previously published results when used in the text of the submitted manuscript.
  8. All the participants of published investigations having made significant contributions to its realization should be mentioned in the authors’ list. All co-authors are to be aware and agree fully with its text. Participants of the complete work, who contributed the paper creation, may be thanked at the end of the main content.
  9. Authors guarantee the accuracy of the results published in the paper. Authors are obliged to notify promptly the Editorial Board immediately if significant errors or misprints in their manuscripts are identified. Authors should cooperate with the Editor to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary. The same applies to works already published in the Journal. Authors should maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript.
  10. The funding organizations should be mentioned in the manuscript text if the results submitted for the publication were obtained under their financial support.
  11. Authors are obliged to declare financial, institutional, and any other potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process).

 Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

Identification of unethical behavior

  1. Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the Editorial Board and Publisher of the Journal at any time, by anyone.
  2. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
  3. Whoever informs the Editorial Board or Publisher of such misconduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation of the identified misconduct to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision and reasonable conclusion are reached.


  1. An initial decision should be taken by the editor in any case of identified misconduct. The Editor should consult with or seek advice from the Publisher, if appropriate.
  2. The Editor is responsible for gathering of pieces of evidence and avoiding of spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

Minor misconduct, primarily any misunderstandings or misapplications of standards might be dealt without the need to consult more widely. The Editor must inform authors or reviewers where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused or the funding organization supporting the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the Editorial Board and publisher as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers and funding organizations, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.


The outcomes are mentioned below in increasing order of severity and may be applied as well separately as in conjunction depending on the severity of the proven misconduct.

  1. Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  2. An official strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct with a warning to future behavior.
  3. Publication of a formal notice detailing the proven misconduct.
  4. Publication of an editorial detailing the proven misconduct.
  5. An official letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or to the head of the funding organization mentioned in the paper.
  6. Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, the head of the funding organization mentioned in the paper, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  7. Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for the period defined by the Editorial Board depending on the misconduct severity.
  8. Reporting the proven misconduct case and outcome to a professional organization, professional societies, and higher authority for further investigation and action.