Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

English (reference)  |  O‘zbekcha  |  Русский

This statement sets out the ethical standards for authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher of Digital Technologies in Industry (SRT; e-ISSN 3030-3214). It covers submitted manuscripts and the published scholarly record. Its purpose is to prevent misconduct, support fair editorial assessment and explain how concerns about research and publication integrity should be raised and addressed.

English is the reference version of this statement. Uzbek and Russian versions are provided for accessibility; questions about interpretation should be referred to the editorial office. This does not change the journal's publication languages.

Page published: 31 August 2026. Reference language: English.

Implementation transparency: VERIFY notes identify journal-specific details that require editorial confirmation. They are not evidence that the relevant operational arrangements have already been implemented. The ethical requirements below must be distinguished from claims about existing technical controls, service contracts or investigation capacity.

Contents

  1. Publication Ethics Principles
  2. Duties of Authors
  3. Duties of Editors
  4. Duties of Reviewers
  5. Publisher Responsibilities
  6. Authorship and Contributorship
  7. Originality and Plagiarism
  8. Self-Plagiarism
  9. Duplicate and Redundant Publication
  10. Data Fabrication and Falsification
  11. Image Manipulation
  12. Citation Manipulation
  13. Conflicts of Interest
  14. Funding Disclosure
  15. Research Misconduct
  16. Confidentiality
  17. Complaints and Appeals
  18. Corrections and Errata
  19. Retractions
  20. Expressions of Concern
  21. Human and Animal Research Ethics
  22. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies
  23. Post-Publication Discussion
  24. Ethical Complaints Contact
  25. COPE Principles

1. Publication Ethics Principles

Research and publication must be honest, transparent, accountable and respectful of participants, contributors and readers. Editorial assessment must concern the merits and integrity of the work, rather than an author's nationality, institution, personal relationships or ability to purchase optional services. Payment, advertising and commercial interests must not determine scientific acceptance.

This statement establishes standards and a framework for handling concerns; it does not certify past compliance or imply endorsement by COPE or Scopus. Existing journal policies should be read together with it. Any inconsistency should be reported rather than interpreted as permission to disregard an ethical requirement.

VERIFY V1 — The editorial office must confirm the policy owner, formal approval date and arrangements for reviewing this statement. The page publication date is not a claim of prior editorial approval.

2. Duties of Authors

Authors must submit an accurate account of the work, explain methods and limitations, distinguish evidence from interpretation, and cite sources they have actually consulted. They must obtain necessary permissions, approvals and consent, disclose relevant interests and funding, and identify related publications and submissions.

Every named author must approve the submitted version and accept responsibility for their contribution and for cooperating when integrity questions arise. Authors must respond honestly to editorial queries, supply supporting material when reasonably requested and promptly report a significant error discovered before or after publication.

3. Duties of Editors

Editors must assess relevance, originality, methodological soundness and ethical acceptability; select reviewers with appropriate expertise; consider substantive criticism; and give reasons for editorial decisions. They must not favour associates, suppress legitimate negative findings or request irrelevant citations to improve citation metrics.

Editors must disclose conflicts and avoid handling work in which they have a competing interest, including their own submissions. Editorial independence must be protected from fee collection and commercial pressure. Concerns require an evidence-based assessment, an opportunity for the affected parties to respond and a documented outcome.

4. Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must accept work only when they have suitable expertise and can provide a timely, objective assessment. Reports should explain the scientific reasons for criticism, distinguish essential corrections from optional suggestions, and avoid personal attacks. Suspected plagiarism, manipulated evidence or undisclosed overlap should be reported privately to the editor.

Reviewers must disclose competing interests, decline an assignment when impartiality is compromised, and protect the manuscript and review correspondence. They must not exploit unpublished findings or contact authors outside the editorial process without permission. The confidentiality arrangements communicated for each assignment must be respected.

VERIFY V2 — Reconcile the peer-review description with the actual OJS review mode and reviewer requirements. The existing public policy describes double-blind review, while the audited default setting is Open Review. This statement does not assert that every manuscript undergoes anonymous review.

5. Publisher Responsibilities

The publisher is responsible for supporting editorial independence, maintaining clear public policies, accurately identifying the journal's ownership and publishing arrangements, and providing a route for integrity concerns. Fees and optional services must be transparent and must not imply a guarantee of acceptance.

The publisher must cooperate with justified corrections and investigations and support preservation of the scholarly record. Claims about indexing, memberships, archiving services and technical safeguards must reflect arrangements that can be substantiated.

VERIFY V3 — Confirm the legal publisher, journal owner and respective responsibilities. Existing site settings and payment information identify different organizations; a payment recipient must not automatically be described as the legal publisher.

6. Authorship and Contributorship

Read the full Authorship and Contributorship Policy for author eligibility, responsibilities, contribution statements and requests to change authorship.

Authorship requires a substantive intellectual contribution, participation in drafting or critically evaluating the manuscript, approval of the final version and accountability for the work. Funding, seniority, routine assistance or administrative supervision alone do not justify authorship. Eligible contributors must not be omitted; honorary, purchased and ghost authorship are unacceptable.

A contribution statement should explain each author's role; CRediT terminology may be used where appropriate. Other assistance should be acknowledged with permission. Requests to add, remove or reorder authors must explain the reason and include agreement from all affected authors. Unresolved disputes require institutional clarification; editors should not adjudicate employment or ownership disputes.

7. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must distinguish their own work from material taken from others. Verbatim text requires quotation or equivalent clear attribution; paraphrased ideas, translated material, data, code and images also require appropriate credit and permission where applicable. Changing language or wording does not remove the obligation to acknowledge the source.

Similarity reports are screening aids, not a verdict of misconduct. Overlap must be assessed in context, with attention to attribution, its location and significance. Authors should have an opportunity to explain a concern. Proven problems may require revision, rejection or a post-publication notice according to their seriousness.

VERIFY V4 — The journal has identified Milliy Antiplagiat (milliyantiplag.uz) as its primary plagiarism-checking service. The editorial office must still confirm screening coverage and any supplementary services actually used. No unverified subscription, universal screening coverage or automatic acceptance threshold is claimed here.

8. Self-Plagiarism

Authors must disclose and cite substantial reuse of their previously disseminated text, data, figures or analyses. Presenting old results as new, or concealing the extent of overlap, is unacceptable even when the authors own the copyright. Limited methods overlap should be assessed in disciplinary context and must not disguise a lack of new contribution. Reuse must also comply with the applicable licence or permission.

9. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

A manuscript must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal. Authors must provide details of substantially related articles, conference papers, theses and preprints so the editor can assess overlap. Transparent preprint posting is not by itself misconduct and must be distinguished from duplicate journal publication.

The same findings must not be republished as independent new research or divided into misleadingly fragmented papers. A justified secondary publication or translation requires editorial agreement, appropriate permissions and an explicit link to the original; it must not be presented as an unrelated original study.

10. Data Fabrication and Falsification

Inventing observations, participants, measurements or results is prohibited. Selectively changing or omitting data, methods or analyses in a way that misrepresents the research is also prohibited. Simulated or synthetic data are legitimate only when accurately labelled and methodologically justified; they must never be represented as actual observations.

Authors must retain the source material needed to support their claims and explain data access restrictions. Reasonable requests for underlying evidence must respect consent, confidentiality, intellectual property and applicable obligations. An inability to share data openly is not, by itself, proof of misconduct.

11. Image Manipulation

Figures must accurately represent the source evidence. Authors must not add, remove, duplicate or obscure image features in a misleading way. Necessary adjustments must preserve the meaning of the data; composites, splices and relevant processing steps must be disclosed. Original files should be available for justified editorial scrutiny. Illustrative or AI-generated images must be labelled and must not be substituted for experimental evidence.

12. Citation Manipulation

References must be relevant and accurate. Authors, reviewers and editors must not participate in coercive citation, citation trading, gratuitous self-citation or organized attempts to inflate journal or author metrics. A suggested reference should have an identifiable scholarly purpose. Acceptance must not depend on adding citations solely to benefit a person, institution or journal. Suspected manipulation may be raised through the ethics contact below.

13. Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could reasonably influence the work or its interpretation, including employment, consultancy, ownership, patents, funding, close relationships and competing professional interests. Where none exist, a clear negative declaration should be supplied.

Editors and reviewers must disclose their own relevant relationships and withdraw from decisions where impartiality is compromised. Disclosure is not an automatic finding of wrongdoing. A material undisclosed interest requires assessment of its effect and may justify reassessment, correction or other action.

14. Funding Disclosure

Authors must identify financial and material support, relevant grant identifiers, and the funder's role in study design, data collection, analysis, writing and the decision to submit. If there was no specific funding, this should be stated. Sponsor restrictions that affect access to data or publication must be disclosed. Editorial decisions must remain independent of research sponsorship and payment of publication charges.

15. Research Misconduct

The Research and Publication Misconduct Policy defines misconduct categories and explains evidence assessment, author response, possible institutional contact, and correction or retraction.

Concerns may be raised before or after publication, including by readers or whistleblowers. Reports should identify the manuscript or article and provide specific, verifiable evidence. Anonymous reports should be assessed on their substance; an allegation alone is not a finding of misconduct.

The assessment framework is to document the concern, assess its relevance and supporting evidence, seek an explanation from the affected authors, evaluate the response and decide whether publication should pause, further expertise is needed, or a correction or other notice is warranted. Matters requiring access to institutional records should be referred to the relevant institution or competent body where appropriate. The journal's role is to protect the literature, not to claim investigative powers it does not possess.

VERIFY V6 — Confirm who records and assesses allegations, appoints an unconflicted decision-maker and authorizes institutional referrals. The journal must establish this responsibility in practice; a standing ethics committee is not claimed.

16. Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts, review reports and integrity correspondence must be handled as confidential information. Access should be limited to people with a legitimate editorial or investigative role. Unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage or shared with unauthorized persons. Disclosure necessary for an investigation should be proportionate and respect applicable confidentiality and privacy requirements.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential submissions to public AI tools or other external services without appropriate authorization and safeguards. Confidentiality should not be used to prevent a justified correction of the public record.

VERIFY V5 — Confirm retention periods, authorized recipients and safeguards for OJS files, screening services and Telegram transmission of review documents. The current integrations must not be described as keeping all data solely inside OJS.

17. Complaints and Appeals

The Complaints and Appeals Policy explains complaint types, the contact channel, assessment stages, independent consideration and the final decision.

Ethical complaints and appeals may be submitted in writing to the editorial contact in section 24. A complaint should explain the conduct at issue and provide supporting evidence. An appeal against an editorial decision should identify a substantive factual error, procedural concern or evidence that warrants reconsideration; disagreement alone does not establish an error.

Assessment must be fair, documented and free from relevant conflicts. A person whose conduct is challenged must not be the sole decision-maker on that complaint. Where possible, the matter should be reassessed by an editor not involved in the original decision. The outcome and reasons should be communicated to the parties as confidentiality permits.

VERIFY V6 — Confirm the independent escalation contact for complaints involving the editor or publisher, the appeals decision-maker and realistic acknowledgement and response times. No independent ombudsperson or fixed response deadline is claimed until these arrangements are confirmed.

18. Corrections and Errata

For definitions, decision principles, article links and DOI/metadata safeguards, read the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Errors that affect the accuracy or interpretation of an article, without invalidating its central findings, should be addressed by an identifiable correction or erratum. Authors and readers should notify the editorial office with the article reference, location of the error and proposed correction.

A substantive correction should explain what changed and why, identify the original article, carry a publication date and be linked to the affected record. Material changes must not be made silently. Minor presentational changes should not obscure the history of scientifically relevant amendments.

19. Retractions

For definitions, decision principles, article links and DOI/metadata safeguards, read the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Retraction is intended to protect readers when an article can no longer be relied upon, whether because of serious error or misconduct. Grounds may include unreliable findings, substantial plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, unacceptable research ethics or a compromised publication process. A dispute that does not undermine reliability does not automatically warrant retraction.

A retraction notice should identify the article, explain the reason and state who is issuing it. The original record should ordinarily remain accessible, clearly marked and linked to the notice, rather than being silently deleted. Any exceptional removal requires a specific justification and an explanatory record. Author disagreement must not prevent an evidence-based decision needed to protect the literature.

20. Expressions of Concern

For definitions, decision principles, article links and DOI/metadata safeguards, read the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when credible, substantial doubts affect an article but the evidence is incomplete, an investigation is unresolved or a reliable determination cannot yet be made. It should explain the basis and limits of the concern, without presenting an allegation as proven. The notice should be linked to the article and updated or followed by a correction, retraction or clarification when a supported conclusion becomes available.

21. Human and Animal Research Ethics

Research involving people, identifiable personal information or human material must report the relevant ethics review or documented exemption, the reviewing body and reference number where available, and the consent arrangements. Consent to participate and consent to publish identifiable details are separate issues. Authors must protect privacy and justify any lawful exception; retrospective approval must not be represented as prospective approval.

Animal research must report applicable ethics approval, welfare safeguards and relevant standards, including how replacement, reduction and refinement were considered. These requirements apply when relevant to the submitted research; this statement does not imply that the journal operates an ethics committee or approves studies itself. Unsupported approval claims or serious ethical deficiencies may prevent publication.

22. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

The Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy explains human responsibility, disclosure, verification of facts and references, confidentiality for reviewers and editors, and the treatment of AI-assisted images, data and content.

AI systems cannot be authors: responsibility remains with human authors. Authors must disclose substantive AI assistance in the manuscript, identifying the tool, version where available, purpose and extent of use. Research uses affecting data, analysis or figures require enough methodological detail to evaluate the work. Authors must verify facts, references, originality and permissions and must not present generated content as authentic observations.

AI must not be used to fabricate results, conceal plagiarism or create misleading research images. Routine spelling assistance should be distinguished from substantive generation, and authors should disclose use when in doubt. Reviewers and editors remain responsible for their assessments and must not expose confidential manuscripts to AI services without authorization and appropriate safeguards. An AI-detection score alone is not sufficient evidence of misconduct.

23. Post-Publication Discussion

Readers may submit reasoned comments, requests for clarification or evidence of error through the editorial email. Contributions should focus on verifiable scholarly issues and avoid harassment or unsupported personal accusations. Relevant author responses should be sought where appropriate. A concern raised after publication must be considered on its merits, not dismissed because the article has already been published. Significant findings should be reflected in the public record through an appropriate notice.

24. Ethical Complaints Contact

The Complaints and Appeals Policy explains complaint types, the contact channel, assessment stages, independent consideration and the final decision.

Send publication-ethics concerns to admin@srt-journal.uz, the editorial address already listed in the journal's public editorial policy. Suggested subject: “Publication ethics concern — [article DOI or title]”. Include the article or submission reference, the specific concern, supporting evidence and an address for a reply where possible. Do not send unnecessary personal data or material you are not authorized to disclose.

If the complaint concerns the person receiving it, explicitly request consideration by someone without that conflict. The journal's Contact page provides its current public contact details.

VERIFY V6 — Confirm the named officer responsible for this mailbox and publish an independent escalation address. The mailbox is verified as publicly listed; delivery, monitoring and an independent appeals channel have not been verified.

25. COPE Principles

This statement uses recognized publication-ethics guidance as a reference for editorial judgement, including COPE's Core Practices, its guidance on retractions, and the joint principles of transparency in scholarly publishing. The relevant areas include misconduct, authorship, complaints, competing interests, data, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer review and post-publication correction.

COPE guidance is to be applied to the circumstances of a case, with a proportionate response and respect for the available evidence. Referring to this guidance is not a claim of COPE membership, certification, approval or endorsement, and publication of this statement does not guarantee acceptance by an indexing service.

Recognized guidance informing this statement