Publication ethics

The Annual of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics adheres to the guidelines  set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and upholds international standards for publication ethics. The editorial board is committed to adhering to widely accepted principles and best practices for ethical conduct in publishing.

Ethical considerations apply to all participants involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors. The publisher and editors are responsible for taking reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of papers involving research misconduct, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication.

Authors' obligations

Originality and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent their original work. Proper citation is required when using excerpts from their own or others' works, and plagiarism in any form is not tolerated.

Multiple or simultaneous publication: Manuscripts submitted to the Annual must be unpublished and not under consideration by any other publication.

Acknowledging sources: Authors are required to acknowledge all sources of data used in their manuscripts and cite them accurately.

Compliance with standards and data accessibility: Authors should base their conclusions on objective data, correct calculations, and scientific reasoning. References to previous studies must be appropriate and accurate, and authors must retain data used in their research and make it available upon request for verification.

Correction of errors: Authors must promptly inform the editor of any errors discovered in their manuscript after submission.

Relevance of references: All references cited in the manuscript must be directly related to its content.

Authorship: Only individuals who have made significant contributions to the writing of the article should be listed as authors.

Conflict of interest disclosure: Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the outcomes of their research or the publication process.

In the event of allegations of research misconduct related to a published article, the publisher and editors will follow COPE's guidelines for addressing such allegations.

Reviewers' obligations

Contribution to editorial decisions: The meticulous work of reviewers forms the basis for editorial decisions regarding publication. Additionally, reviewers' insights can enhance the quality of manuscripts. Any information that may lead to the rejection of a manuscript must be promptly communicated to the Editor.

Timeliness: Reviewers who feel they lack sufficient expertise in the manuscript's scientific field or cannot meet the review deadline must promptly notify the Editor that they are withdrawing from the review process.

Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all manuscript-related information. They are obliged to adhere to strict confidentiality principles and refrain from discussing any aspect of the reviewed manuscript with third parties.

Objectivity standards: Manuscripts should be evaluated impartially based on their intellectual content, irrespective of the author(s)' gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship, or political views. Reviews must be conducted objectively, grounded in the manuscript's factual merits. Reviewers are expected to articulate their viewpoints clearly, with competence and with enough arguments.

Acknowledging sources: Reviewers must diligently observe citation practices and the use of data and sources. If reviewers identify significant similarity between the reviewed manuscript and a previously published article, they must notify the Editor immediately.

Conflict of interest disclosure: Reviewers should refrain from reviewing manuscripts when conflicts of interest arise due to professional, personal, financial, or other associations with the author. Reviewers must not exploit ideas or information from unpublished manuscripts without the authors' consent. Any perceived conflicts of interest during the review process must be disclosed to the Editor.

Editors’ obligations

Objectivity and fairness: The Editors assess submitted articles solely on their scientific merits, without regard to the authors' gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, citizenship, or political views.

Confidentiality: All information related to the manuscripts is treated with strict confidentiality. The Editors  are prohibited from discussing submitted materials with any third party, except for the reviewers, publisher, and authors.

Conflicts of interest: Any identified conflicts of interest related to manuscripts will be promptly disclosed to the Managing editors and the author(s). Members of the editorial board and reviewers are prohibited from exploiting ideas and information from unpublished manuscripts without the authors' consent.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement: The Editors adhere to appropriate policies regarding plagiarism and copyright infringement. Necessary measures will be taken to detect instances of plagiarism and research misconduct, and authors will be notified of manuscript rejection accordingly.

Decision for publishing: The Managing editors make the decision for publishing as suggested by the Associate editor. The Associate editor and the Managing editors have in mind the reviewer’s opinion and comply with the editorial policy for protecting the author’s rights and against all forms of plagiarism and fraud.

Ethical irregularities and complaints: The Editors will resort to immediate measures in all cases of received signals for unethical behavior like plagiarism, incorrect citation, manipulation of data and results. The measures include contacts with the affected parties and institutions for discovering the truthfulness of the alleged ethical irregularities. As a consequence of this process, the manuscript can be removed or, if already printed, the identified ethical irregularities can be published. In the case of rejecting a manuscript the authors have the right to ask for a new review but only in the case of submitting to the Managing editors convincing proofs of the reviewer’ inaccuracies. In this case it is possible to have a new expert review, which will be final.