It is necessary for all entities involved in the publishing activities to agree on ethical terms. The international scientific journal "Defence and Science" recognizes and respects the rules of ethics. The Code of Publishing Ethics fully recognizes the publishing principles and practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is based on its best practical principles (https://publicationethics.org/).

 

General

1. The mentioned Code defines the ethical norms and rules of conduct of the publisher, editorial board, reviewer and author for the journal "Defence and Science".
2. Based on moral responsibility, the Code of Publishing Ethics aims for the journal "Defence and Science" to establish trust in the society towards highly qualified scientific publications.
3. The Code is based on the principles of fairness, objectivity, confidentiality and transparency.
4. The mentioned Code is being developed and improved based on the requirements of modern times; The best ethical practices are being introduced and implemented.

 

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

Conscientiousness - The Editorial Board should perform its activities honestly and conscientiously, which generates users’ trust that is the principal value of the journal;

Fairness - The Editorial Board decides the issue of publication based on the scientific and intellectual value of the paper, and not on the basis of the author's position, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship and political views;

Publishing Decisions - The Editorial Board forwards the reviewer's comments and notes to the author without disclosing the reviewer's identity. If necessary, the Editorial Board presents established and reasonable evidence regarding the content of the paper and its scientific values;

Confidentiality - The Editorial Board must ensure strict confidentiality of the article and the communication that takes place between the Board and the author. Only the decision on publication can be made known to public;

Authors' telephone numbers and e-mail addresses will be used only for journal purposes and not for any other purpose or by any other party;

Conflict of interests - In case of a (possible) conflict of interests between the Editorial Board member and the author, the Academic Council makes the final decision;

If the editor-in-chief is the author/co-author of the article, he/she cannot be involved in the review process of that article. In such a case, his/her responsibility will be transferred to another member selected by the Editorial Board.

 

Responsibilities of the Reviewer

1. When evaluating the article, the reviewer clearly substantiates his/her position and is independent from any influence or pressure. He/she evaluates all important details and is not influenced by his/her own or other persons' interests;
2. Evaluation should be done based on the principle of objectivity. No personal criticism towards the author is acceptable. The position regarding the paper should be expressed only on the basis of arguments;
3. A review should be like a creative dialogue with the author where both sides have equal rights;
4. The issue presented in the review may be controversial but this does not deprive the reviewer of the right to express his/her opinion, which must be supported by appropriate arguments and must be based on the principal and essential episodes and key moments of the text under review;
5. The reviewer is required to follow the norms of ethics and maintain goodwill even in case of a negative review;
6. It is acceptable to use emotion-free vocabulary for evaluation instead of using words such as unusual, unique, extraordinary, terrible, senseless, annoying, etc.;
7. The reviewer should avoid demonstrating his/her own person and should be focused on showing the positive and negative aspects of the text under review;
8. When using the information obtained during the evaluation of the article, the reviewer should protect confidentiality, should not use the information obtained from the unpublished article for personal purposes in any form or in a way that would come into conflict with the interests of the author or do harm to the goals and objectives of the journal;
9. The reviewer will not submit the article to other reviewers without the permission of the editor-in-chief;
10. The identity of the reviewer is hidden even if the review is negative or it has a form of recommendation;
11. The reviewer should cite all significant sources the author has not used. He/she should also observe the citation the author has not properly cited; Attention should be paid to whether there is any substantial overlap with the papers of other scholars that have been published on a similar issue.
12. The reviewer refuses to do a review if:

• He/she guessed the identity of the author by the well-known phrases and ideas used in the text;
• The submitted paper is very close to the reviewer's research topic that determines his/her subjectivity at the time of evaluation;
• There are any other circumstances for conflict of interests (indicate which one).

1. During the evaluation process, if the reviewer finds any inconsistencies such as plagiarism, data falsification, double publication, etc., he/she will inform the publisher about it;
2. If the reviewer is not able to review the paper within the deadline offered by the Editorial Board or the research subject is beyond his/her competence and he/she considers himself/herself unqualified, he/she should inform the Editorial Board of the journal as soon as possible.

 

Responsibilities of the Author

1. Authors are required to follow the rules of ethics, which include the proper reference of the author/authors, the correct use of sources, the exclusion of falsification and fabrication, the proper reference of the persons involved in the development of the paper, respect for personal data and other issues; The author must persuade the Editorial Board that his/her paper is the result of original research.
2. In case of using ideas and quotations of other authors, the paper must be compiled in accordance with the mandatory citation style outlined in "Defence and Science".
3. The author should not transfer the paper already published to another journal, or he/she must not send the paper published in another publication to the editors of Defence and Science.
4. Any manifestation of plagiarism is considered an unethical and dishonest behavior that damages the dignity of a person and is against the principles of academic activity established in the scientific community.
5. In case of plagiarism detected before publication, the author will be notified about it and the Editorial Board will request an explanation within 5 days.
6. After the explanation of the author, the Editorial Board is authorized to set a reasonable time limit for him/her to correct the error, not exceeding 5 working days.
7. If the author refuses the explanation or the author's explanation fails to refute the existence of plagiarism, the paper will not be accepted for publication.
8. In such a case, the Editorial Board reserves the right to definitively refuse to publish future papers submitted by this author to "Defence and Science" or to ban him/her from publication for a period of up to 3 years, taking into account the level of the violation.
9. If the author refuses to provide an explanation or the author's explanation fails to refute the existence of plagiarism, the Academic Council will conduct a discourse about the author's responsibility.
10. The author whose plagiarism has been proven will be prohibited by the Editorial Board from publishing the article in the journal "Defence and Science" eventually or for a period of up to 3 years, taking into account the level of the violation. In such a case, the Editorial Board reserves the right to remove the published article from the electronic version of the journal.
11. The basis for relatively light responsibility can be the researcher's inexperience or honest explanation of his/her mistake as well as self-plagiarism and reckless plagiarism.
12. Any decision made will be notified to the author of the plagiarism in a written form.
13. The author can request a reasoned written response from the editor-in-chief about the actions taken against him/her.

 

Publisher's Duties

1. National Defence Academy ensures compliance with the ethical norms of the international scientific journal "Defence and Science" according to the mentioned code. The journal must ensure the exclusion of conflict of interests during the editing process. In case the author and the member/members of the Editorial Board have a conflict of interests, the author and/or member of the Board has the right to declare about a possible conflict of interests and the Editorial Board will make a final decision about it;
2. The publisher must persuade the author/reader that the decision of the Editorial Board of Defence and Science is not influenced by any external factors.
3. The publisher provides communication between the journal and the author.
4. Publisher makes the best settlement proposal in case of complaint.
5. The publisher promotes and develops the best practices for "Defence and Science" and is focused on correcting inaccuracies and introducing innovations.

 

Other Provisions

1. In case of violation found in a paper published in the journal, any person has the right to apply to the editor-in-chief of the journal and request for the study of the issue and appropriate response. The application must contain detailed information about the violation (author and title of the paper, type of violation, argument).
2. The editor-in-chief is obliged to review all such applications within a reasonable time limit together with the Editorial Board and inform the applicant of a reasoned response. The author(s) will be notified about the application and given the opportunity to provide their own explanations.
3. In case of suspected or proven scientific misconduct or plagiarism, the Editorial Board will study the explanations of the author/authors. If the Board considers that the published paper is against the rules of the journal it will make a decision in a collegial manner. In more serious cases, it is possible for the Editorial Board to completely remove the mentioned article from the corresponding number.