Publication Ethics

---

The editorial board of The Paton Welding Journal adheres to international ethical standards for scientific publications, which include integrity, confidentiality, publication oversight, prevention of potential conflicts of interest, and other ethical principles.

The editorial board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, in particular, Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit. It also relies on the experience of reputable international publishing houses.

Compliance with publication ethics by all participants in the publishing process ensures the protection of authors’ intellectual property rights, enhances the quality of the journal, and prevents the improper use of authors' materials for personal gain.

This regulation aligns with the journal's policy and is one of the key components of the article review process and journal publication.

Ethical Obligations of Editorial Board Members and Editors

1. All submitted materials undergo a thorough selection process and peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article if a member of the editorial board believes it does not align with the journal’s scope or to return it for revision. The level of compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines is evaluated separately (see Submission section). The author must revise the article according to the reviewers’ or editorial board’s comments.
2. Editorial board members must review all submitted manuscripts impartially, evaluating each based on merit regardless of the author’s race, religion, nationality, position, or institutional affiliation.
3. Editorial board members must review manuscripts as promptly as possible and consider the reviewers' recommendations regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript.
4. Editorial board members must not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those involved in the professional evaluation process. Once a manuscript is approved, it is published in the journal and made available on relevant electronic platforms.
5. The responsibilities and rights of an editorial board member regarding a submitted manuscript authored by that member must be delegated to another qualified individual.
6. If a manuscript is closely related to the current or past research of an editorial board member, leading to a potential conflict of interest, the member must take steps to transfer editorial responsibility to another qualified individual.
7. If compelling evidence emerges that the core content or conclusions of a published work are incorrect, the editorial board member must facilitate the publication of a relevant correction notice in the journal. This notice may be authored by the person who identified the error or an independent author.
8. An editor may decide to involve one or more reviewers if their opinions are deemed crucial for an impartial evaluation of the manuscript.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

1. The primary responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate account of the conducted research in a manner suitable for an objective discussion of its significance.
2. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their articles and the fact of their publication. The journal's editorial board is not liable to authors or third parties for any potential harm caused by the publication of an article.
3. Submitted research findings must be sufficiently detailed and include necessary references to accessible sources to enable specialists in the field to replicate the work.
4. Authors must cite publications that have significantly influenced their research and those that provide a background for understanding the study. Except for review articles, citation of unrelated works should be minimized. Authors must conduct a literature review to identify and reference original publications closely related to their study. Sources of fundamental materials used in the work must be properly acknowledged unless obtained directly by the author. Self-citation should be limited as much as possible.
5. When submitting a manuscript, authors must inform the editor-in-chief about related manuscripts they have submitted or accepted elsewhere. Copies of these manuscripts must be provided to the editor-in-chief, along with an explanation of their relationship to the submitted manuscript.
6. Authors must not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same results to more than one journal as an original publication, except in cases where a previously rejected or withdrawn manuscript is being resubmitted.
7. Authors must clearly indicate the sources of all cited or presented information, except for generally known facts. Information obtained privately (through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or disclosed without explicit permission from the original researcher.
8. Experimental or theoretical studies may sometimes serve as the basis for critiquing another researcher’s work. Published articles may contain such critiques when justified. However, personal criticism is never acceptable under any circumstances.
9. Co-authors should include only those individuals who have made a significant scientific contribution to the work and share responsibility for the results. Other contributions should be acknowledged in footnotes or the "Acknowledgments" section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that only eligible contributors are listed as co-authors. The corresponding author, who submits the manuscript and communicates with the editorial board, must obtain consent from all co-authors for the article’s publication.
10. Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as consulting or financial relationships with companies that may be affected by the article’s publication. Authors must also ensure that there are no contractual agreements or proprietary considerations that could influence the publication of the manuscript.

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

1. Since peer review is a crucial step in the publication process and fundamental to the scientific method, every researcher must participate in reviewing when required.
2. If a selected reviewer is uncertain whether their expertise aligns with the manuscript’s content, they should immediately return the manuscript.
3. Reviewers must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, interpretation, and presentation, and determine how well it meets scientific and literary standards. They must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
4. Reviewers must consider potential conflicts of interest if the manuscript is closely related to their ongoing or previously published research. If a conflict exists, the reviewer must return the manuscript without reviewing it and indicate the conflict of interest.
5. Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts if they have personal or professional relationships with the authors that could influence their judgment.
6. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not show the manuscript to others or discuss its content with colleagues unless a specific consultation is needed.
7. Reviewers must adequately explain and support their assessments so that editors and authors understand the basis for their comments. Any claim that observations, conclusions, or arguments have been previously published must be accompanied by appropriate references.
8. Reviewers must highlight cases where authors have inadequately cited relevant works by other researchers. However, requests for excessive citations of the reviewer's own work should be avoided. Reviewers must alert the editor-in-chief to any significant similarities between the manuscript and other published articles or concurrently submitted manuscripts.
9. Reviewers must provide feedback in a timely manner. The initial review period should not exceed one month.
10. Reviewers must not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations from the manuscript without the author’s consent.