The Editorial Board of Additive Fabrication Technology Journal commits to the internationally accepted principles of publication ethics expressed in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Ethical Code of Academic Periodicals and takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers.

To avoid any unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presenting false information, etc.) and to ensure high-quality scientific publications and public recognition of the author’s scientific results, each member of the Editorial Board, publishers, authors, reviewers and institutions involved in the publishing process will adhere to ethical standards, rules and regulations and take any reasonable steps to prevent their violations. Compliance with these ethical guidelines by all parties ensures authors’ intellectual property rights. It improves the quality of the Journal and excludes any possible misuse of copyrighted material in the interests of particular individuals.

Key terms used in the provision are as follows:

Publication ethics is a system of professional conduct standards between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers. It comes up when creating, disseminating and using scientific publications.

The Author is a person or a group of persons (group of authors) who produce a manuscript that contains the results of their scientific research.

The Editor-in-Chief heads the Editorial Board and makes final decisions on the Journal's production and publication.

The publisher is a legal entity or a natural person responsible for publication.

The paper is an author’s finished and published work.

Plagiarism is the wrongful appropriation of another author’s scientific or artistic work, ideas, discoveries or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright and patent law and, as such, can entail legal liability.

The editor is a representative of the research journal or publisher responsible for selecting and preparing materials for publication. He encourages communication between authors and readers of scientific papers.

The Editorial Board is an advisory body consisting of competent persons who assist the Editor-in-Chief in selecting, preparing and evaluating manuscripts.

The reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the research journal or the publisher. He provides scientific evaluation of authors’ works to consider their publishing.

The manuscript is an author’s work submitted for publication in the journal.

The reader is any person who has familiarized themselves with the published materials.

1. The Code of Conduct for Publishers 

In carrying out their activities, publishers are responsible for the publication of authors’ works, which implies that the publisher will:

1.1. Encourage the Editorial Board, the editorial and publishing group, reviewers and authors to fulfil their ethical obligations in compliance with these requirements.

1.2. Assist the Editorial Board of the Journal in considering claims to ethical aspects of the published materials. Promote interaction with other journals and/or publishers, if it assists editors in carrying out their duties.

1.3. Ensure confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and any information until publishing. 

1.4. Recognize the fact that the journal's activities are noncommercial, without any profit motives.

1.5. Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

1.6. Entitle the Editorial Board to reject publications containing plagiarism and false data.

1.7. Have a right to reject the manuscript or require its revision, if it does not follow with the journal.

1.8. Make the manuscript, accepted for publication, available to the public on the website; with copyright holders retaining their rights.

1.9. Publish information about research funding, if the author gives such information.

1.10. Correct factual, grammatical, stylistic and any other errors when detected.

1.11. Discuss all editor’s alterations in the manuscript with the author to get their approval.

1.12. Publish the journal on time.

2. The Code of Conduct for Authors

When submitting to Additive Fabrication Technology Journal, authors (groups of authors) know they bear primary responsibility for the novelty and validity of scientific results, which implies adhering to the following principles:

2.1. Authors should provide reliable research results. False or fraudulent statements are acceptable.

2.2. Authors will ensure that research results are completely original. It is mandatory to include the author and source of any borrowed fragment of statement. Excessive borrowing and any form of plagiarism including non-documented citations, paraphrasing or appropriating another person’s research results are non-ethical and unacceptable. The Editorial Board regards borrowing without references as plagiarism.

2.3. Authors should provide only authentic facts and data; give enough information for other researchers to verify and repeat experiments; do not use obtained privately information, without open written consent; do not allow data fabrication and falsification.

2.4. It is important for authors to avoid manuscript duplication (in their cover letters, authors should state whether any fragments of their work have been published elsewhere). If some elements of the manuscript have been previously published, the author should refer to the earlier work and specify the differences.

2.5. Authors should not submit the manuscript that has been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as the manuscript already published in another journal.

2.6. It is critical to recognize the contribution of all persons who, in one way or another, participated in the research; in particular, the manuscript should contain references to works that significantly influenced the research.

2.7. Authors should adhere to ethical principles when criticizing or commenting on third-party research.

2.8. All those who contribute are called co-authors. It is not acceptable to list persons who did not participate the research.

2.9. Authors should respect the work of the Editorial Board and reviewers and erase the indicated inaccuracies or justify them.

2.10. Authors should submit and prepare their manuscripts in compliance with the Journal standards.

2.11. If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the manuscript under consideration or after its publication, they should immediately inform the Editorial Board.

2.12. Authors should prove to the Editorial Board or the Publisher that their initial manuscript is valid. They should also correct substantial errors if the Editorial Board becomes aware of them from a third party.

3. The Code of Conduct for Reviewers

Reviewers provide scientific expertise of the authors’ material; hence, all their actions should be impartial, and the following principles should be adhered to:

3.1. The manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document which cannot be passed for discussion or examination to a third party unless authorized by the Editorial Board.

3.2. Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial or partial similarity of the manuscript under consideration and any other work, as well as the absence of references to statements, conclusions or arguments previously published in the papers of this or another author.

3.3. Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial or partial similarity of the manuscript under consideration and any other work, as well as the absence of references to statements, conclusions or arguments which have been previously published in the papers of this or another author.

3.4. The reviewer should note the relevant published works not quoted (in the paper). 

3.5. Reviewers should give an objective and reasoned evaluation of the research results, as well as justified recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. 

3.6. Reviewers’ comments and suggestions should be objective and essential, aimed at improving the scholarly value of the manuscript.

3.7. Reviewers should make decisions based on particular facts and justify them. 

3.8. Reviewers cannot copy the manuscript for personal use.

3.9. Reviewers cannot benefit from their awareness of the manuscript content until its publication.

3.10. Reviewers should request the Editor to exclude them from the reviewing process if they do not have the required expertise, or cannot be objective, as in case of competing interests with any of the authors or institutions.

3.11. The manuscript review is confidential. Only the Secretary General and the Editor-in-Chief know the reviewer's name; this information should not be disclosed.

4. The Code of Conduct for the Editor-in-Chief.

In carrying out their activities, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making authors’ work public, which implies abiding by the following basic principles:

4.1. When making decisions on publishing, the Editor-in-Chief should be guided by the manuscript's validity and scientific significance.

4.2. The Editor-in-Chief should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the author.

4.3. Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts should not be used in personal interests or passed to a third party without the author’s written consent. The information or ideas obtained in editing and related to possible advantages should stay confidential and not be used for personal benefit.

4.4. The Editor-in-Chief should not allow the information to be published if there are enough grounds to believe it is plagiarism.

4.5. The Editor-in-Chief should:

– Improve the journal;

– Uphold the principle of freedom of opinion;

– Strive to meet the needs of the journal readers and authors;

– Exclude the influence of business or political interests on decision-making when publishing materials;

– Decide on the publication of materials according to the following main criteria: appropriateness of the manuscript for the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted manuscript; clarity; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. A publication decision is based on the quality of the research and its relevance;

– Take all reasonable steps to provide high-quality published materials and protect personal information confidentiality.

– Consider reviewers' recommendations when making a final decision about publishing the manuscript. The Editorial Board of the journal decides on publication;

– Justify manuscript acceptance or rejection decisions;

– Ensure that the author of the reviewed material can substantiate their viewpoint;

– Do not revoke the publication decision made by the previous Board, if the Editorial Board list has been updated.

4.6. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Publisher, should not leave unanswered complaints about peer-reviewed manuscripts or published materials; they also should detect conflicts and take all necessary measures to restore infringed rights.

5. Publishing Principles

5.1. Compliance with publication ethics by the Editorial Board.

5.2. Compliance with the basic principles when rejecting manuscripts.

5.3. Ensure the integrity of academic writing.

5.4. Protection of intellectual property and ethical standards in the context of commercial considerations.

5.5. Willingness to publish corrections, clarifications, rejections and apologies when needed.

5.6. Prevention of plagiarism and fraud publication.

6. Conflict of Interest

To avoid publication ethics breaches, it is crucial to eliminate conflicts of interest between all publishing parties. Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers or the Editorial Board have financial, scientific or personal relations that may influence their actions. Such relations are known as dual commitments, competing interests or competing loyalties.

To prevent conflicts of interest and follow journal ethical standards, each party should bear the following responsibilities.

The editor should:

– Pass the manuscript for consideration to another Editorial Board member if the appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the manuscript author;

– Ask all participants in the publishing process for information about competing interests;

– Make decisions to publish the information from the author's letter about scientific and/or financial conflicts of interest if it is not confidential and may affect the published work evaluation by readers or academia;

– Publish corrections if a conflict of interest arises after the paper is published.

The author should:

– Show the place of his work and the source of research funding.

The reviewer should:

 – Inform the Editor-in-Chief about conflicts of interest (dual commitments, competing interests) and decline to review the manuscript.

 Violations

If publication ethics is breached by the editor, authors or reviewers, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished materials. The Editorial Board should seek clarification, without involving those with a conflict of interest with any of the parties.