I. The editors and the editorial board of the journal “Stomatology for All / International Dental Review” follow a policy of international ethical principles Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) of the preparation and publication of scientific medical journal. Publishing ethics is the main task of editing, reviewing, publishing and definition of copyright scientific publications.
The present paper outlines the ethical principles, which the authors should follow when conducting and reporting of scientific research, also reviewers and editorial staff during the review of submitted articles and deciding upon their publication.

II. Data reliability.

According to the ethical obligations scientists must provide reliable results of scholarly work for publication.

III. Authorship.

All persons designated as authors should meet the criteria of this term. Participation in the work of the each author must be sufficient to take responsibility for its content. The right to be called as “the author” is based on the following facts:

1) substantial contribution to the conception of the study or, analysis, or interpretation of data;

2) preparing the text of the article or making principal alterations;

3) final approval of the version to be publis.

Participation, consisting just in providing funding or selection of material for an article, does not justify inclusion in the group of authors. The general supervision of the research team also is not to be recognized as sufficient for authorship.

All team members who fail to match criteria for authorship should be listed (with their consent) in the section “Acknowledgements”.

The order in which authors are listed, is determined by their joint decision.

Acquisition of funding or collection of data, as well as general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.

Editors of the “Stomatology for All / International Dental Review” journal has the right to request and publish information about the contributions of each person in writing the article. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the section “Acknowledgements”. The group of authors/contributors should jointly make the decision about the order in which their names are given. The authors are responsible for the contents of their paper or short communication and it’s publication fact The editorial staff reserves the right to shorten and review the articles submitted.

IV. Originality and Plagiarism.

The authors of submitted papers should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and / or words of other authors, it should be clearly identified by references or in the text.

Plagiarism takes many forms: from presenting someone else’s  work for one’s own to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s work (without reference to the source), as well as claiming the rights to the results obtained in the studies carried out by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable in publications.

Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors should not submit for publication a previously published article.

The works of other researchers should be clearly identified. Authors should provide references to publications that have influenced the content of the submitted paper.

V. Plagiarism.

The editorial board commits itself to help the scientific community in implementation of publishing ethics, especially in cases of suspected duplicate article submission or plagiarism.

VI. A conflict of interests.

A conflict of interests concerning the certain manuscript comes in the event if one of the participants in the review process or the publication is an author, reviewer, or editor has obligations that might influence its opinion. The most common cause of a conflict of interest arising seems to be financial relationships. There may be other reasons – personal relationships, scientific competition.  Members of the review process and the publication must report about existence of any conflict of interest.

When authors submit a manuscript, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and other relationship that might bias their work. Authors should identify all individuals and institutions, who provided financial assistance, as well as other financial and personal support. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor(s), in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.

Authors should provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential, usually professional, conflicts of interest.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interests that could bias their opinions of the manuscript; they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. In return, the editorial staff should have the possibility to judge the objectiveness of the review and decide whether to refuse the reviewer’s service.

Editorial staff may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial interest/involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgment) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.

VII. Reviewing.

“Stomatology for All / International Dental Review” is peer-reviewed journal. Submitted papers and short communications are evaluated by editorial board members or an independent viewer whose specialization is closest to the area covered in the manuscript. All manuscripts are reviewed on the double blind reviewing basis – neither the Authors know who reviewers are, nor the reviewers know who the Author of each particular manuscript is. The name of institution, where the Author works or makes research remains confidential as well. A reviewer makes a conclusion on whether the article can be published or not by giving formulations:

  1. recommended;
  2. not recommended;
  3. recommended after corrections;

Reviewer usually within 31 days concludes the possibility of printing the article. Final decision concerning the expediency of the paper publication is made by the editorial board.

VIII. Fair Play

The Editor-in- Chief evaluates the submitted papers for their intellectual content, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy of the authors.

IX. Respect for Patients’ Rights and confidentiality.

Patients have a right to privacy that must not be infringed without their informed consent. Personally identifiable information, including the names of patients, initials, numbers of hospitals and medical records, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs and pedigrees unless the information is not of great scientific value, or if the patient has given written consent for the publication. Authors should submit to the editor a written informed consent of the patient on the dissemination of information and report about it in the article. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published.

X. Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research.

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.