EDITORIAL POLICIES

Goals and objectives

The journal is intended for publishing scientific articles of employees working in higher educational institutions, research institutes, industrial enterprises and organizations of our republic and carrying out research work, as well as professors and teachers of the Institute, young scientists, doctoral students and independent researchers.

Based on the tasks defined in the Law "On Education" and the National Training Program, scientific achievements in our country and foreign universities are comprehensively covered. The journal presents the nature and geography of the region, the study of underground and ground resources, the results of best practices in industrial enterprises combined with science, in agriculture, oil and gas industry, energy, industry and agriculture in a market economy Published scientific results of studying the economy of farming.

 

Periodicity

12 per year

Deferred Public Access

The contents of this journal will be publicly available 6 months after the issue is published.

Reviewing

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal "Innovative Technologies" are subject to mandatory double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).

  1. Articles are reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and editorial board, as well as invited reviewers-leading experts in the relevant industry in Uzbekistan and other countries. The editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor, and editor-in-chief make the decision on choosing a reviewer to conduct an expert examination of the article. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.
  2. Each reviewer has the right to reject a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer's decision is justified).:
    • the article is recommended for publication in this form;
    • the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
    • the article needs additional review by another specialist;
    • the article cannot be published in the journal.
  3. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the editorial board sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned (partially or completely) way. Revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an email to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review.
  4. If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
  5. If the author and reviewers have any unsolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
  6. The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article that is not recommended for publication by the editorial board's decision is not accepted for re-consideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
  7. After the editorial board makes a decision to allow the article to be published, the editorial board informs the author about it and specifies the publication date.
  8. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for publishing the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
  9. Original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
  10. The editorial board of the journal sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan upon receipt of a corresponding request.

Indexing

Publications in the journal "Innovative Technologies" are included in the citation index calculation systems for authors and journals. "Citation index" — a numerical indicator that characterizes the significance of this article and is calculated on the basis of subsequent publications referring to this work.

The journal is indexed in the following systems::

  • Google Scholar is a freely available search engine that indexes the full text of scientific publications in all formats and disciplines. The Google Academy Index includes the majority of peer-reviewed online journals published by major scientific publishers in Europe and Central Asia.

Ethics of scientific publications

This section is based on the materials of the Scientific literature publishing house www.zotero.org.

Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editors of the journal, Reviewers, publishers and Scientific Society for the journal "Innovative Technologies"

1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for compliance with all current recommendations in the published work.

1.3. The publisher undertakes strict supervision of scientific materials. Our journal programs provide an unbiased "report" on the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility to properly present these "reports", especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications outlined in this document.

2. Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. Publishing decision

The editor of the scientific journal "Innovative Technologies" is personally and independently responsible for making the decision on publication, often in cooperation with the relevant Scientific Society. The validity of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always be at the heart of the decision to publish. The editor can be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "Innovative Technologies", being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) when making a decision on publication.

2.2. Confidentiality

The editor and Editorial Board of the journal "Innovative Technologies" are obligated not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, except for the Authors, Reviewers, possible reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.

2.3. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of interest

2.3.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.3.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely, request a Co-editor, Assistant Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing the work instead of reviewing and making a decision themselves) in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies, and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

2.4. Supervision of publications

An editor who has provided convincing evidence that the claims or conclusions presented in the publication are incorrect should inform the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) about this in order to promptly notify changes, withdraw the publication, express concerns and other relevant statements.

2.5. Engagement and collaboration in research

The Editor, together with the Publisher (or Scientific Society), takes appropriate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with

The authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the relevant complaint or demand, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Influence on the Editorial Board's decisions

Peer review helps the Editor to make a decision about the publication and through appropriate interaction with the Authors can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communication, located at the very heart of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work on reviewing the manuscript.

3.2. Performance

Any selected Reviewer who feels that they are not qualified to review the manuscript or do not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor of the journal "Innovative Technologies" and ask to exclude them from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript submitted for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened or discussed with anyone who is not authorized to do so by the Editor.

3.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity

The reviewer must give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinion.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under review and any other published work that falls within the Reviewer's area of scientific competence.

3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of interest

3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

4.1. Requirements for manuscripts

4.1.1 The authors of the original research report should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented correctly. The work should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or obviously erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, and the Editorial Board's point of view should be clearly indicated.

4.2. Data access and storage

Authors may be asked for raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this type of information (PDF), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors should make sure that the entire original work is presented, and if the works or statements of other Authors are used, they should provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as author's, to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work (without attribution), and to claiming your own rights to the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, redundant, and simultaneous publications

4.4.1 In general, the Author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article to another journal for consideration.

4.4.3. Publication of a certain type of article (for example, clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is sometimes ethical if certain conditions are met. Authors and editors of interested journals should agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the primary published work.

The bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. For more information about acceptable forms of secondary (repeated) publications, please visit www.zotero.org/

4.5. Recognition of primary sources

The contribution of others should always be recognized. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the implementation of the submitted work. Data obtained in private, such as during a conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the explicit written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the granting of grants, should not be used without the explicit written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of the publication

4.6.1 The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the submitted research. All those who have made significant contributions should be identified as Co-authors. In cases where research participants have made a significant contribution in a particular area in a research project, they should be listed as persons who have made a significant contribution to this study.

4.6.2. The author should make sure that all participants who made a significant contribution to the study are presented as Co-Authors and those who did not participate in the study are not listed as Co-authors, that all Co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.

4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are objects of research

4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may pose any unusual risk, the author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.

4.7.2 If the work involves animals or humans as research objects, Authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the study comply with the legislation and regulatory documents of research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly state:

it is reflected that informed consent has been obtained from all people who have become research objects. Your privacy rights should always be monitored.

4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of interest

4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the paper.

4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are required to be disclosed include employment, consulting, equity ownership, receiving royalties, providing expert advice, a patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Significant errors in published works

If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author should inform the Editor of the journal "Innovative Technologies" and interact with the Editor in order to withdraw the publication as soon as possible or correct errors. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

5. Responsibilities of the Publishing House

5.1 The Publisher should follow principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by Editors,

Reviewers and authors of the journal "Innovative Technologies" in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production has not affected the Editors ' decisions.

5.2. The publishing house should provide support to the Editors of the journal "Innovative Technologies" in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help them interact with other journals and/or Publishers, if this contributes to the performance of their duties as Editors.

5.3. The publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical guidelines, withdrawal procedures, and error correction.

5.4 The Publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.

Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author.
Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated
with the submitted work.

Borrowing and plagiarism

The Editorial Board of the journal "Innovative Technologies" may review the article using the Anti-plagiarism system. If numerous borrowings are found, the editorial board acts in accordance with the authors ' rules.

Preprint and postprint Placement Policy

When submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in another scientific journal. When you link to an article published in the journal "Innovative Technologies" , the publisher asks you to post a link (the full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.

Articles published earlier by authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers are allowed for consideration.