Editorial Policy of the Journal

The “Oncology and Radiology of Kazakhstan” Journal aims to publish and inform a wide range of readers about the results of scientific works on fundamental and applied clinical and experimental research in the field of oncology and radiology. The Journal accepts articles devoted to the organization of oncological services, epidemiology of oncological diseases, prevention of oncological diseases, diagnosis of precancerous diseases and cancers, clinical oncology, radiology, experimental oncology and radiobiology, psychosocial care in the oncological service, as well as staff training. The main scope of the Journal includes epidemiology, diagnostics and treatment of cancer patients, roentgenology and radiology issues.

The activity of the Editorial Board (EB) of the Journal “Oncology and Radiology of Kazakhstan” is guided by the “Code of Responsibility for the publication of studies: international standards for editors,” the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers, the international associations of editors and publishers.

Introduction

The Editorial Board is guided by the principles of scientific rigor, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality; it respects the principles of publication ethics concerning the Journal’s audience, the authors, the sponsors of research and publication, and the peer reviewers. The authors shall adhere to the scientific publication ethics. The EB can accept or reject the submitted manuscripts based on the peer reviewers’ opinions. Members of the EB and the editor-in-chief have the final word in the decision to publish an article.

Editorial Guidelines

1. Liability for the content of the Journal. The EB is liable for the published material (except the advertising and information materials), observes the procedure and policy of editing to preserve papers’ scientific integrity, and ensures the quality of published materials.
2. Independence and integrity of editing. The EB defends the principle of independence and objectivity of editing to make fair and impartial decisions.

2.1 Commercial-free decision-making. In its decisions, the EB follows the rules of commercial-free editing and decision-making. The EB takes an active part in the pricing policy of the publisher and strives for the wide availability of the materials they publish.

2.2 Relations between the editors and the publisher or the owner of the Journal. The publishers shall not participate in making decisions on the content for commercial or political reasons.

2.3 Journal metrics and decision making. The EB shall not try to influence the Journal rating by artificially increasing any journal metrics. It is inappropriate to require that the articles from this Journal are referenced for any reason except for genuine scientific purposes. The EB shall ensure that the documents are reviewed on purely scientific grounds without any pressure on the authors.

3. Confidentiality of editing

3.1 Authors’ Material. The editors shall protect the confidentiality of the authors’ material and remind the reviewers to do so. The editors shall provide the submitted manuscripts to other journals only with the authors’ consent or in the event of an alleged unlawful act. Usually, the editors do not provide any material to the lawyers for court cases. Only the authors shall be informed of the status of submitted manuscripts. However, in case of investigation of data falsification, plagiarism, and other illegal actions, there may be a necessity to disclose the materials to third parties (i.e., the members of the Academic Council, the Local Ethics Committee, other editors, the authors of papers that were used for plagiarism).

3.2 Peer reviewers. The editors select the peer reviewers. The editors shall protect the confidentiality of the peer reviewers except in the case of an open peer review system. Peer reviewers shall be allowed to disclose their names if they wish to.

General Editorial Policy

4. Transparency, reporting. The expansion of knowledge in a scientific field requires knowing why certain research has been done, who has planned and conducted the study, and what the paper adds to the available knowledge. Maximum transparency, complete and honest reporting is crucial in achieving this understanding.

4.1 The authorship and responsibility.An author is a person who has participated in writing the manuscript, developing its concept, designing the study, collecting material, doing analysis and interpreting the results. All co-authors shall meet these criteria. The authors are ethically responsible for the publication and dissemination of the results of scientific research. All authors shall make a significant contribution to the work and be familiar with all its content. The editors do not participate in disputes regarding the list of authors before or after publishing. Such disputes are resolved at the institutional level or through other appropriate independent authorities regarding both published and unpublished works. The editors can amend the list of authors of a published article only based on the conclusion of a commission.

4.2 Conflicts of interests (COI) and the role of the source of financing. The editors urge the authors to disclose their relationships with industrial and financial organizations that can result in a COI. All sources of financing shall be indicated in the text of the manuscript. The editors may ask the authors of any financial or non-financial COI.

4.3 Reporting, adherence to reporting principles. Maintain a high standard of scientific literature is one of the major duties of the editors. The editors shall ensure that all the published documents significantly contribute to their field. The editors shall prevent the so-called “cutting of undesirable elements,” duplication, or redundant publication unless acceptable to all (i.e., publishing in another language with cross-references). The editors shall require the authors to post their manuscript in the context of their previous works (i.e., to indicate why this specific paper was necessary / made, what it adds to the field or why the previous paper shall be replicated, and what the readers should take from it). In certain areas, the Journal may require presenting the protocols or curricula and evidence of adherence to the relevant principles.
Adherence to reporting principles is important for the editors, peer reviewers, and readers to understand the actual conduct of research.
The editors check the manuscripts for plagiarism, duplication, or redundant publishing using anti-plagiarism software.

5. Response to criticism.

The feedback from other researchers on the published research is welcome and is important for a scientific discussion. The Journal can publish the readers’ response to promote such discussion.

5.1 Ensuring the paper integrity – corrections. Corrections are made in the case of genuine errors found by readers, authors, or editors in published papers. Any correction in the online version of the Journal is introduced with the date and the link to the correction in the printed version. If the study (or a part thereof) is declared invalid, the paper is excluded, with an explanation of reasons.

5.2 Ensuring the paper integrity – tracking misconduct. Suppose the readers, the peer reviewers or other persons identify any serious problems related to misconduct. In that case, the editors shall contact the authors (better, all the authors) and convince them to respond to these problems. If the answer is not satisfactory, the editors take action at the institutional level. In some cases, when the problems are very serious, and the published paper can influence the clinical practice or public health, the editors shall consider the possibility to inform the readers thereof. The editors can make their own decision to withdraw an article even if the investigation conducted by the institution or a national authority does not give such a recommendation. The editors shall respond to the statements or suspicions of the researchers or misconduct in publishing disclosed by the readers, peer reviewers, or other editors. The editors are free to evaluate the cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate / redundant publication at their discretion. The editors can call for an investigation by the institution or another authority if they are not satisfied with the authors’ explanations. The articles that have been withdrawn are also subject to storage, but they must be clearly marked as withdrawn.

5.3 Scientific discussions. The EB provides a mechanism enabling the readers to discuss the documents, give criticism, and debate (via the printed Journal or online). The authors can contribute to the discussion and the criticism in appropriate cases.

Editorial processes

6. Peer review process. The editors provide a fair and qualified expert evaluation. All papers which are not advertising or editorial materials are subject to peer review (open, blind, or double-blind). The review is conducted following the existing article review procedure.

6.1 Decision on the need for a review. The editors can reject a manuscript without a peer expert if such a manuscript is deemed unfit. The decision not to send a document for peer review shall be based only on the academic content of the manuscript.

6.2 Interaction with peer reviewers. The editors shall attract for peer-reviewing the experts with sufficient experience and no COI. The peer reviewers shall follow the deadlines for the submission of their opinions. They shall be informed of the editorial policy of the Journal. They shall inform the editors ASAP of any COI for making decisions on the possibility of objective assessment. Some COIs may disqualify the peer reviewer. The editors shall inform the peer reviewers of the confidential nature of the materials. The editors shall possess a mechanism of monitoring the quality and timing of peer review and provide feedback to the reviewers.

6.3 Misconduct of peer reviewers.The editors shall monitor the peer reviewers’ activity to avoid any breach of confidentiality, COIs (financial or non-financial), and delay in providing the reviewers’ opinions. Accusations of serious misconduct such as plagiarism shall be accepted at the institutional level.

6.4 Interaction with the authors shall be based on the principles of courtesy, justice, objectivity, honesty, and transparency. The editors shall pass all the reviewer’s comments to the author. In exceptional cases, a part of the review may be excluded if it, i.e., contains slanderous or offensive remarks. A final decision is communicated to the authors. The authors may appeal the rejection of their manuscript. Still, the editors are not obliged to change their decision.

7. Decision-making by the EB.

The editors make decisions on submitted manuscripts, and this process must be fair, impartial, and follow the academic vision of the Journal.

7.1 Editorial processes. The editorial processes are set out in the Information for the authors: what is expected from the authors, what types of manuscripts are accepted, and how the documents are processed in the Journal. All the editors are familiar with the policy, the vision, and the field. The final responsibility for all the decisions rests with the editor-in-chief.

7.2 Editorial COIs should not influence any publishing decisions (i.e., if they work or have been working in the same institution, if they own shares of the same company, or in case of their personal relations with the author).