PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
(based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
Ethical guidelines for journal publication

The Journal of Computer Science and Control Systems (JCSCS) is committed to ensuring
ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical
behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers,
and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of their
research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to
replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute
unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective,
comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should
ensure that their work is entirely original work, and if the work and/or words of
others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all
its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting
the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical
publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles
describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding
author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving
the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their
academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own
research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take
reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented
concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept
confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted
objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting
arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. 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. 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.