The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model
for our "Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases"
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.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the
journal should be published.
The editor may 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 other
editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content
without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic
origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
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
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an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
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the
editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving
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
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is
inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting
Acknowledgement of Sources
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.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
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
Data Access and Retention
Authors are 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
(consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable,
and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time
Originality and Plagiarism
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.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
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
Authorship of the Paper
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
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.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
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
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
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.
Fundamental errors in published works
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
Editor in Chief,
Prof. Dmytro Zabolotny