Prevention of Research Misconduct

The Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board, authors and reviewers of the Journal operate according to the standards that ensure ethical publication. The collaboration guidelines are based on the COPE: Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. The Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board, authors and reviewers must comply with the Code of Ethics for Scientists approved by the Latvian Academy of Sciences and the RTU Code of Academic Integrity.

It is the responsibility of the Editorial Board of the Journal to prevent violations of publishing ethics. Violations of academic integrity are reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee of the Riga Technical University.

Responsibility of the author(s)

The author(s) ensure that the submitted manuscript is their original research that has not been previously published or submitted for consideration in another journal. The author(s) must satisfy the requirements for the formatting of the article, which is available on The Journal’s website. The author(s) will provide references to all sources used in the manuscript. If the author(s) include images in the manuscript for which they do not own the copyright, they are responsible for obtaining written permission.

After receiving the reviewer’s comments and communicating with the Editor-in-chief, the author(s) will make corrections based on the reviewer’s recommendations. Author(s) will make corrections until the manuscript is accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor.

Responsibility of the Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board

The Editor-in-chief is responsible for the work of the Editorial Board. The editor evaluates the submitted manuscript and decides on its quality and relevance to the subject and mission of the Journal. In case of Journal incompatibility, the article is rejected without external review – with general information provided regarding the decision to reject the publication. This decision is not subject to a formal appeal.

If the submitted manuscript is eligible, the editor sends it to a reviewer. The editor ensures a double-blind peer review process and the confidentiality of the review. The Editor-in-chief makes the final decision to publish or reject the manuscript on the ground of the reviewer’s comments and in consideration of the corrections made by the author(s).

The editor has the right to determine whether the submitted article is suitable for the Journal in terms of quality or subject examined.

The editor oversees the peer-reviewing process and communicates the reviewer’s comments to the author(s), with a decision regarding publication of the manuscript, improving the prospective manuscript, or a rejection to publish.

The members of the Editorial Board will ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the publication of articles is impartial, and the decision to publish a manuscript is based solely on the contents of the article.

Responsibilities of the reviewer

The reviewer respects the confidentiality of the reviewing process and remains impartial in evaluating a manuscript. The reviewer will provide an unbiased opinion to the editor by completing a reviewing form. If the reviewer believes that they lack the relevant competency to review a manuscript or that there is a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer will notify the editor so that another reviewer can be appointed.