Basic principles of publication:
• «Mining Book «publishing house relies in it’s activity upon regulations of the Chapter 70 «Author's Right» of the RF Civil Code.
• Only original scientific-technical articles or surveys, being not published anywhere before, are accepted for publication in the editorial staff of the journal «Mining in formational and analytical bulletin (scientific and technical journal)» (GIAB) issuing by «Mining Book» publishing house.
• The papers having political profile, or the papers including biased or incorrect evaluations of other scientific works and other specialists, are not accepted for publication in the journal issuing by «Mining Book» publishing house.
• Duplicate publication, all kinds of copying and reproduction of articles or materials published in the journal issuing by «Mining
Book» publishing house are permitted only by written consent of
the corresponding editorial staff.
General duties and responsibilities of editors:
Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journal GIAB. They should:
• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• constantly improve the journal;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Relations with journal owners and publishers:
• The relationship of editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in each case be based firmly on theprinciple of Editorial independence.
• Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediatefinancial or political gain.
Relations with readers and authors, conditions of publications and protecting individual data:
• Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.
• Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
• Authors or author send to the editorial staff the paper for it’s publication, strictly meeting the requirements of submission of articles (including pictures).
• One of the authors, authorized as representative of other authors of sent paper in relations with the editorial staff, guarantees that the paper has not been published before and is not submitting in any other edition at present time.
• In the case the sent paper has been already published partly in another periodical edition or book, and this periodical edition or book publisher have copyright for this publication, the authors are responsible for timely obtaining of corresponding permission for new publication.
• The submitted paper should be accompanied with the official letter from the company where the first or main author is working. This letter should include confirmation of possibility to publish this article in public media without any restrictions.
• The submitted paper should be also accompanied with written consent from all authors for its publishing in printed or/and electronic mode and (if required) from corresponding companies, universities and plants that participated anyhow in this work or this work has been executed using their equipment and devices.
• This written consent of the authors of the paper is automatically considered as confirmation of the fact that authors have copyright for publishing material including text of the paper and its pictures, graphs, photos and tables, that all data presented in the paper are real and authentic, and that they have significantly contributed to the research described in the submitted paper.
• Authors of the paper should supply the editorial staff with their personal and contact details such as company, occupation, phone and e-mail that will be published in the journal.
• Any change to the author's list after starting submission of the paper needs to be approved by a signed letter from every author.
• In the journal publication not more than 5 authors are usually displayed; if more specialists have participated in researches and preparation of the article, part of them (on the decision of authors themselves) can be mentioned in reference on the first page of the article otherwise in acknowledgements in the end of the article.
• Authors agree that the submitted paper will be subjected to the peer-review (preserving anonymity of reviewers) and oblige to participate in this process and collaborate with Editors to improve this paper, to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept/ reject an article;
• Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they accept or reject.
• Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’srelevance to the remit of the journal.
• Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, to correct or retract found errors, recognizing that journals andsections within journals will have different aims and standards.
• A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any importantdeviation from the described processes.
• Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
• Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
• New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problemsare identified.
• Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information of authors. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written in formed consent from authors to use their photographs or other personal data.
Relation with reviewers and the peer-review process:
• Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
• Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected — unless they have an open reviewsystem that is declared to authors and reviewers.
• Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
• All sent papers will be peer-reviewed at least by one expert in this scientific field. The name of the expert is not opened to the authors as a rule.
• The review includes objective analysis of correspondence of the sent paper to the journal requirements on thematics and volume; estimation of scientific and technical innovative features; literacy and perspicuity of description; credibility of experimental data; representativeness of reference list.
• The reviewers should have no conflict of interests with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
• The reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
• As a result of peer-review (usually during 2-4 weeks), it is concluded about possibility of publishing this paper: it can be accepted as presented or with corrections, it can be returned for principal revision with consequent new submission, or it can berejected. This conclusion id approved be the editorial staff and/or editorial board of the corresponding journal.
• Based on the results of the peer-review and internal (editorial) review, the authors should be informed about these reviews and terms when revised paper should be sent again to the editorial staff.
• Proofs or make-up of the edited paper are usually sending to the authors or one authorized author for final approval.
• If the authors wish to publish in another edition (e.g. in conference proceedings or university collection of scientific works) anypart of the paper already submitted to any journal issuing by GIAB, the authors should obtain written consent of the corresponding editorial staff for this duplicate publication. Commercial considerations and conflict of interest:
• Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes forpublishing supplements.
• Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the samecriteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
• Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
• Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewersand Editorial board members. Encouraging academic integrity:
• Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
• Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethicscommittee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Pursuing malpractice, misconduct and plagiarism:
• Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
• Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged topursue alleged cases.
• Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask therelevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
• Editors should follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts where applicable – http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts
• Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen,Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous butim portant duty.
• Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published and may violate integrity of the academic record, itmust be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
• If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted.
The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
• In the case of plagiarism comes to light after a paper is published in one of the journals issuing by «Mining Book» publishing house, or duplicate publication of the same paper in different journals, the corresponding editorial staff takes the measures for revealing the causes of this violation of the ethical guidelines of publication, informs the authors about this fact and reserves the right not to accept other articles of these authors in the future.
• If plagiarism is revealed during peer-review or editing of the paper, it should be returned to the authors for principal revision or rejected.
• If plagiarism or duplicate publication is found out after publishing the journal with this paper, editorial staff of the corresponding journal reserves the right to publish information about this fact in the nearest journal issue, to mark properly the pages with this paper in the electronic version of the journal and in the web-site of GIAB, or to exclude this paper from the electronic version at all.
Complaints and disputes:
• Direct contacts are the main and most preferential method of communication (i.e. for adjustment of disputes) between the editorial staffs and authors in the process of submission and preparing the articles for publication.
• Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to takecomplaints further according to the COPE recommendations − http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts.
• Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be.
• Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
• Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
• Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.