NOTE: The editorial policy of the Military Technical Courier is based on the COPE Core Practices and the journal articles are consistent with accepted best practices in their subject areas. As of 2 May 2018, the Military Technical Courier is a member of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
The publication of an article in this peer reviewed journal is an essential model for the scientific journal Military Technical Courier. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Duties of the Military Technical Courier editor

There are no APCs (author processing charges) or submission charges for the articles submitted to the Military Technical Courier. The whole process of article editing and publishing is entirely free of charge for authors.
The editor of the Military Technical Courier is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor must hold no conflict of interest with regard to the articles he/she considers for publication. If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, the selection of reviewers and all decisions on the paper shall be made by the Editorial Board. If any member of the Editorial Board feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, they shall withdraw from the editorial process.  
The editor should be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with the members of the editorial board or reviewers in making this decision.
The  editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Following the recommendations of the CEON Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES), the editor applies the electronic editing system ASSISTANT which enables transparency and public access to work and accepts a full responsibility for the acceptance and publishing of articles.
Before sending articles for peer reviews, the editor checks the content of the submitted manuscripts for plagiarism using the iThenticate service (CrossRef and CrossCheck). According to the standards applied by the journal, plagiarism, where someone assumes another's ideas, words, or other creative expression as one's own, is a clear violation of scientific ethics. Plagiarism may also involve a violation of copyright law, punishable by legal action. Plagiarism includes the following: word for word, or almost word for word copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's work without clearly indicating the source or marking the copied fragment (for example, using quotation marks); copying equations, figures or tables from someone else's paper without properly citing the source and/or without permission from the original author or the copyright holder. Any manuscript which shows obvious signs of plagiarism will be automatically rejected.
Journal applies a „double blind peer review process“ for papers. Authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other in the process of review.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
The Editorial Office has pledged to remove an already published article in case of the following, subsequently discovered facts regarding the article in question:
- plagiarism,
- self-plagiarism,
- article already published in some other journal or publication,
- inaccurate data on authorship (fake claim of authorship, listing authors who did not participate in the article's creation or omitting authors who did participate),
- conflict of interests,
- fraudulent use of data or fabrication of results,
- unauthorised technical interventions on figures,
- substantial technical error such as omitting parts of the text or an error in reproducing illustrations.
Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this practice has been adopted for article retraction by our journal: in the electronic version of the retraction note, a link is made to the original article. In the electronic version of the original article, a link is made to the retraction note where it is clearly stated that the article has been retracted. The original article is retained unchanged, save for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it is “RETRACTED”.
Retractions and corrections are published according to the requirements set up by CEON/CEES ( as the publisher of national citation index, where metadata of retractions and retracted papers have to be marked by appropriate warnings and cross-links.

Duties of reviewers 
Reviewers are required to provide written, competent and unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the manuscript.
The reviewers assess manuscript for the compliance with the profile of the journal, the relevance of the investigated topic and applied methods, the originality and scientific relevance of information presented in the manuscript, the presentation style and scholarly apparatus.
A peer reviewer assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. 
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
The Editorial Team of the Military Technical Courier encourages the reviewers to verify their reviews in their personal profile on Publons in accordance with the instructions on the website page: Call and instructions to reviewers for the registration in Publons.
The reviewing policy of the Journal, verified in Publons:
- allows public display of the review (only after the article has been published),
- allows reviewers to display the title of the reviewed article (only after the article has been published),
in accordance with the guidelines of Publons.
Duties of authors 
Authors warrant that their manuscript is their original work, that it has not been published before and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Parallel submission of the same paper to another journal constitutes a misconduct and eliminates the manuscript from consideration by the journal.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. 
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. 

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Anyone may inform the editors and/or Editorial Staff at any time of suspected unethical behaviour or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary information/evidence to start an investigation.
The investigation shall conform to the following principles: the Editorial Staff will initiate an investigation; during an investigation, any evidence should be treated as strictly confidential and only made available to those strictly involved in investigating; the accused will always be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them; if it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either minor or serious/major.
Minor misconduct will be dealt directly with those involved without involving any other parties, e.g.: communicating to authors/reviewers whenever a minor issue involving misunderstanding or misapplication of academic standards has occurred, or a warning letter to an author or reviewer regarding fairly minor misconduct.
In case of major misconduct, the Editorial Staff should make decisions regarding the course of action to be taken using the evidence available. The possible outcomes are as follows (these can be used separately or jointly): publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct; informing the author's (or reviewer's) head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter, the formal, announced retraction of publications from the journal in accordance with the retraction policy; a ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period; referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.
When dealing with unethical behaviour, the Editorial Staff will rely on the guidelines and recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

The views expressed in the published works do not express the views of the Editors and Editorial Staff. The authors take legal and moral responsibility for the ideas expressed in the articles. Publisher shall have no liability in the event of issuance of any claims for damages. The Publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.

Advertising in the Military Technical Courier is not permitted.

Information is available on the journal internet pages in the Serbian Citation Index:
publication policy, journal quality management, article quality support.



Printer frendly

A+ A-
sr  lt  ru  de  fr  es


Last news


Follow Us