Obligations

The users are given guarantees to freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and refer to full texts of “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics” articles.

Figures, tables and brief excerpts from the journal may be published in scientific books and journals at no cost, but the materials must be listed accordingly (example: author, article title, “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics”, publication year, volume number, page number, figure number, and DOI for the article, if provided).

Reprinting, systematic reproduction or collective redistribution of any material from the journal “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics” is allowed only with the consent of the journal editorial.

The journal does not charge article processing or submission charges. Authors hold the copyright without restrictions. Authors are permitted to post their final PDF-files provided by the journal “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics” on their personal or institutional websites and transfer, if necessary, these files into archives.

Open Access Policy

Editorial supports the Budapest Open Access Initiative (Budapest Open Access Initiative), which facilitates the rapid development of science and the principles which the entire contents of the journal is freely available and is free to the user or institution. Allowed users to read, download, copy, distribute (in a manner that does not violate copyright law), print, search, or link to the full article in this journal without asking permission from the publisher or author.

Regulations on the Ethics

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics” in its work is guided by ethics of international scientific publications, including the concepts of integrity, confidentiality, oversight of publications and prevention of possible conflicts of interest and so on.

Editors, in turn, is follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, and based on the experience of reputable international publishers. Compliance with the rules of publications ethics of the all parties of the publishing process helps to ensure the intellectual property rights of creators, improvement of publication quality and prevention of possible misuse of copyrighted material for the benefit of individuals.

This Regulation meets the policy of the journal and is one of the main components of article review and journal publishing.

     1. Duties of authors

The authors are personally responsible for submitted to the journal manuscript and must observe the following principles:

1. Provide reliable results of the conducted research. False or fraudulent statements are equal to unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
2. At the request of the Editorial Board provide baseline data for editor review. Authors must provide free access to such data and store this data for a reasonable time after their publication.
3. Ensure that research results contained in the manuscript, are an independent and original work. When using fragments of others’ work and/or borrowing statements of other authors, the article should have appropriate references with the obligatory indication of the author and the source. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including incomplete references, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of others’ research is unethical and unacceptable. Articles which are a compilation of material published by other authors without own creative processing and author thinking are not accepted by the editorial.
4. Realize that the author(s) is (are) responsible for the initial novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research.
5. Recognize the contribution of all persons who influenced in any way the course of the study or determined the nature of the presented scientific research. In particular, the article should have references to publications that had some significance for the study. Information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence and discussions with third parties should not be used without written permission of the representative of its source. All sources must be open. Even if written or illustrative material of a large number of people is used, the permission to do so must be obtained and submitted to the editor.
6. Present in the journal only the original manuscript. Do not submit to the journal articles that have been sent to another journal and are now pending review, as well as articles published previously in another journal. Failure to observe this principle is regarded as gross misconduct of publication ethics and gives reason for removing the article from the review. If elements of the manuscript were previously published in another article, the authors are obliged to refer to their earlier work and specify how the new work is significantly different from the previous one. Verbatim copying of own work and its paraphrasing is unacceptable, it can only be used as a basis for new conclusions.
7. Ensure the correct composition of the list of co-authors. The co-authors of the article should include all the persons who have made a significant intellectual contribution to its concept, structure and in the conduct or interpretation of results of the presented work. Other persons (or organizations) who participated in some aspect of the work must be expressed gratitude. The author must also ensure that all co-authors are familiar with the final version of the article, approve it and agree to its submission for publication. All of the authors of the article have to bear public responsibility for the content of the article. If the article is a multidisciplinary work, co-authors are responsible each for their own contribution, leaving a collective responsibility for the overall result. It is unacceptable to include persons in co-authors who were not involved in the research.
8. In the event of emergence of significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its review or immediately following its publication notify the editorial of the magazine and make a joint decision to recognize errors and/or correct them as soon as possible. If the journal becomes aware that a published work contains a significant error, the author is obliged to prepare for publication in the journal a report on the relevant error correction or submit proof of correctness of the information they provided.
9. The author should clearly indicate situations in their work where research is related to chemicals, physical and chemical processes or equipment, during which there is a risk to human or animal health. If the research involves the use of animals or humans as subjects, the author must ensure that all procedures were conducted according to the relevant laws and institutional principles, as well as the fact that the relevant government agencies have given their approval. The presented paper should include application and confirmation from the relevant authorities on consent to experiments with people. The right of the person involved in the experiment to privacy must always be followed.
10. Specify in their manuscripts all sources of financial support for the project, information about the employer, patent applications/registrations, grants and other types of funding.
11. Disclose in their works about any information about significant conflicts of interest that could affect the results of the study or their interpretation. All potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

     2. Ethical principles of the reviewer

The reviewer provides scientific expertise of copyrighted material in order to objectively evaluate the quality of the submitted article and determine the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. In assessing the article the reviewer should be impartial and observe the following principles:

1. Expert evaluation should help the author improve the quality of the text and the editor-in-chief to decide on publication.
2. The reviewer who does not consider themselves an expert in the subject of the article or know that they cannot submit a timely review of the article should notify the editor-in-chief and decline to review.
3. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work presented for review. This also applies to supervisors of candidates to a scientific degree and/or staff of the department in which the author works.
4. Any manuscripts received by an expert from the editors for review shall be a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with other individuals except the aforementioned persons.
5. The reviewer must be objective. It is unacceptable to make personal remarks towards the author in the review. The reviewer should express their views clearly and reasonably.
6. The reviewer must identify published articles related to the reviewed articles, not cited by the author. Any statement in the review that some observations, conclusions or arguments in the reviewed article have previously appeared in literature should be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference to the source. The reviewer should also draw the attention of the chief editor to significant overlap or similarity of a reviewed article with any other previously published.
7. In the event of a reviewer suspecting plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, they must contact the editorial board with a proposal for collective consideration of the author's article.
8. The reviewer should provide an objective opinion on the adequacy of citation of published articles in the literature on the given subject.
9. The reviewer should not use the information and ideas presented for review in the article for personal gain, following the principle of confidentiality.
10. The reviewer shall not accept for review manuscripts in cases of a conflict of interest caused by competition, cooperation, or other relationship with any authors or institutions associated with the article.

     3. Principles of professional ethics in the work of the editorial board

Members of the editorial board are responsible for the publication of the provided manuscript following such fundamental principles:

1. When deciding on the publication the chief editor of the scientific journal is guided by authenticity of the submitted data and the scientific significance of the reviewed work.
2. The chief editor should not have their own interests in relation to the articles they reject or accept.
3. The chief editor is responsible for decisions about which of the presented articles will be accepted for publication, and which will be rejected. They are guided by the policy of the journal and adhere to the principles of law, preventing copyright infringement and plagiarism.
4. The chief editor evaluates the submitted article solely by its scientific content, regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious convictions, ethnicity, nationality, origin, social status or political views.
5. The chief editor, the editorial and publishing staff and the members of the editorial board should not report information presented in the journal article to anyone except the author(s), assigned and potential reviewers, other editorial staff and (if necessary) the publisher.
6. Unpublished data from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used by the chief editor, the editorial staff, members of the editorial and publishing groups or the editorial board for personal purposes or transfer to third parties (without written permission).
7. The chief editor should not allow for publication a submitted article if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.
8. The article, in case of approval of its publication, is placed in open access with copyright reserved by the authors.
9. The chief editor together with the publisher should not leave unanswered claims relating to the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. In case of a conflict situation they should take all necessary measures to restore infringed rights, and in case of detected errors - to promote the publication of corrections or refutations.
10. The chief editor, the staff of the editorial or the journal publishing and editorial group must ensure the confidentiality of the names and other information relating to reviewers. If it is necessary, when deciding on assigning new reviewer, the latter may be informed of the names of previous reviewers.

     4. Principles of professional ethics in publisher activity

The publisher is responsible for the publication of works following these basic principles and procedures:

1. Facilitate implementation of ethical responsibilities of editors, editorial and publishing group, editorial board, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.
2. Support the journal in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help interact with other journals and/or publishers if it facilitates the duties of editors.
3. Observe the position that the activity of the journal is not commercial and does not intend to obtain profit.
4. Facilitate the process of publishing corrections, explanations, refutations and apologies when needed.
5. Provide the journal an opportunity to recall publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.

Provisions on Article Review

The review procedure is applied to all articles submitted to the editorial board. The objective of a review is to promote rigorous selection of author manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determination of its compliance with the journal requirements and provides a comprehensive analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Only the articles that have value from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current economic problems and tasks are approved for publication. The level of compliance with the rules for preparing articles for publication in the scientific journal is evaluated separately.

The main purpose of the review procedure is eliminating instances of substandard practice of scientific research and providing coordination and balancing of interests of authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the study was carried out.

The reviewing of manuscripts is held confidentially. By submitting a manuscript to the editors of the journal, the authors entrust to the editors the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. The disclosure of confidentiality of the manuscript review violates the rights of the author. The editors do not report the information concerning the manuscript (including information on its receipt, content, reviewing process, criticism by reviewers and final opinion) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. A breach of confidentiality may only occur in instances of allegations of inauthenticity or falsification of the material, in all other cases its preservation is obligatory.

Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the material of the article rests on the author. Responsibility for verification of facts and data, the validity of the findings and recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article rests on the author and reviewer.

All articles submitted for publication are subject to double review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article. The members of the editorial board recommend as reviewers individuals who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article and have publications on the topic of the article.

When preparing the review, the reviewer must answer “yes”, or “no, needs minor revision”, or “no, needs significant revision”, “position is missing, needs to be added” to the following questions (the question is indicated in the template for the reviewer on the OJS platform):

1. Does the title of the article correspond to its content and purpose?
2. The abstract with keywords reflects the main content of the article and corresponds to the IMRAD structure?
3. Are the key ideas of the article original, scientifically significant and interesting to the readership?
4. Are the main results of the article scientifically sound and significant?
5. Do the article and its key parts correspond to the IMRAD structure and the technical requirements of the journal?
6. Are the tables and figures justified, relevant, and meet the journal's requirements?
7. Is the research methodology appropriate and properly substantiated?
8. Is the language of the article scientific, grammatically correct, and understandable to the readership?
9. Has knowledge of the relevant literature issues of the article been demonstrated?
10. Are the conclusions clear and well-reasoned?

If the reviewers have chosen the answers "no, needs minor revision" or "no, needs significant revision", "position missing, needs to be added" for any item, they must write substantiated comments and explain to the authors how to improve the article.

If the article does not have a template position, for example, position 6, then the reviewer selects "position not provided".

Editors have the right not to notify the author of those comments that contain a subjective assessment of the provisions of the manuscript, or are offensive, or do not meet the established requirements and criteria specified above.

Editors mediate all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review of the article before publication. If agreement cannot be reached, editors may invite additional reviewers.

The responsible editor has the right to return the review for revision if the reviewer has not met the requirements set for reviewers, the review contains ambiguous remarks.

Reviewers do not perform structural or linguistic-stylistic editing of the manuscript, but, if necessary, report editorial problems to the authors and editors of the journal in the appropriate review block.

Reviewers' decisions may be as follows (according to the requirements of the OJS system):

accept the submission;

necessary corrections (authors have 5 working days to make minor changes in accordance with the reviewers' comments, the author sends an improved version that does not require additional review);

additional review is required (in the case of significant comments from the reviewer (the article requires revision of the content, inclusion in the text of additional experimental results, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions, etc.), the editorial office orders the author to submit a version of the article with repeated review, for which the author is given from four to eight weeks to significantly revise the manuscript. Additional review is also required if the reviewer cannot make a decision and suggests involving another expert);

reject the submission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be asked to resubmit the article after significantly revising the content, if, in the opinion of the reviewers, the article requires additional experiments, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions);

see comments (the reviewer cannot make a decision and suggests that the editorial office decide collectively based on his comments).

If the article can be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors’ recommendations, if any.

The author resubmits the revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers’ comments. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article.

The editor-in-chief directly assesses the quality of the changes or sends the article to the reviewers for re-evaluation. In the case of a second round of review, the reviewer may be asked to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s recommendations made during the first round of review.

Reviewers must clearly and reasonedly express their point of view, be polite and constructive in their recommendations.

The author must respond to all reviewer comments in accordance with the review points.

The total review period cannot exceed 2 months from the date the article is received by the reviewer.

The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of manuscript review.

The editorial board takes into account the comments of the reviewers, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.

Anti-plagiarism Policy

Authors who submit material for publication in the journal “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics” agree that the article is written by them personally, never before published and prepared especially for this edition.

The level of uniqueness, the presence and completeness of the necessary citations and bibliographical data are determined by referees. In the case where the facts of plagiarism, the Editorial Board returns the manuscript to the authors without the right to submit it repeatedly.

The forms of plagiarism include: Use (literal citation) any material in any amount without specifying sources; The use of borrowed images, drawings, photos, tables, graphs, charts or any other form of graphical representation of information without attribution; The use of materials without written permission of the authors or copyright holders which prohibit the use of their materials without special approval.

In the presence of all cases of incorrect borrowing of the loan considered individually.

The forms of incorrect borrowings include: Lack of graphic selection (in quotes) literally quoted text in the presence of attributions; Incorrect attribution composition or part of its bibliographic description, which prevents their identification; A reference not to the original borrowed text without explicit guidance on this fact (error in determining the source); The lack of references in the text to sources cited in prystateynomu list; Excessive quoting (with a link to the source and graphic highlight quoted text), the amount of which is not justified genre and purpose of the article.

In case of proven fact of plagiarism in articles that are published, the authors are denied the right to publish all future issues of the magazine, and the text is taken from the archives of the official website of publications and other places of public accommodation, for which carries the magazine “Journal of Numerical and Applied Mathematics”.

Complaints and Appeals

In the event of complaints and/or appeals against the journal's decisions, the following review procedure is applied.

1. Any complaint or appeal is first considered by the editor-in-chief and/or responsible editor who directly participated in the editorial process.

2. The editor-in-chief of the publication may involve in the review two members of the editorial board who have relevant experience in participating in the editorial boards of other publications, whose experience and knowledge can help in resolving the dispute and clarifying the circumstances described in the appeal, as well as in the proper application of the journal's editorial policy and rules of publication ethics.

When considering complaints and/or appeals, the following rules should be observed:

• mutual respect for all participants in the editorial process, presumption of their proper and conscientious behavior until proven otherwise;
• giving all interested parties the right to present their arguments in support or denial of the stated claims;
• due notification of participants in the editorial process regarding the receipt and consideration of an appeal that may affect their rights and/or interests;
• directing the process of resolving any dispute through the search for compromise and mutual understanding.

Complaint regarding the scientific quality of the article, in particular, appealing against the refusal to publish.

In the appeal, the author must provide detailed justification with responses to the reviewers' comments by points. The editor-in-chief considers the arguments of the authors and reviewers and makes one of the following decisions:

• to refuse the applicant due to the groundlessness of the requirements set out in the appeal;
• to satisfy the requirements set out in the appeal.

The person who filed the appeal is notified of the decision with an explanation. The decision on appeals is final, and new submissions have priority over appeals.

Complaint regarding the procedure for reviewing the article (reviewing time, etc.).

The editor-in-chief, together with the responsible editor, investigates the case. The person who filed the complaint will be provided with appropriate feedback. The results of the case review will be taken into account by the relevant stakeholders to improve the editorial and publishing processes.

A complaint about publication ethics, in particular, about the behavior of the author or reviewer.

The editor-in-chief or responsible editor must adhere to the recommendations of COPE, EASE and publication ethics. The final decision to reject a complaint/appeal cannot be canceled or appealed. The editorial board does not correspond with the authors of a manuscript that has been rejected after such a decision.

Post-publication discussion and changes.

The editorial board of the journal encourages authors and readers to active post-publication communication, constructive discussion of the results of published research, identifying the prospects for its application or expressing doubts about the argumentation or significance of the article for the development of science. When discussing articles, no comment may contain an image of any of the authors or editors, reviewers, discriminatory remarks, subjective evaluations and/or characteristics of the work of the publication.

Acceptable and insignificant errors in the published article that do not affect its content or the scientific integrity of the research (in particular, typographical errors, inactive citations, incorrect page numbers in the article titles, etc.) can be corrected by publishing changes - replacing the original PDF file with a corrected one. The paper version of the article remains unchanged.

Significant errors, if the conclusions of the study are based on them, may cause the article to be withdrawn from the corresponding issue of the journal.