The requirements of publication ethics in the preparation and publication of the Natural Science Review journal apply to all participants in the editorial and publishing process, i.e. authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

The Natural Science Review's editorial policy is based on the provisions of notable international associations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), as well as the recommendations of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP-ANRI), which establish standards of ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the publication (authors, editors of the journal, reviewers, publishers and, the scientific society). 

Publisher's ethical obligations:

1. The publisher supports the journal's editorial board in implementing a policy of scientific integrity and compliance with international standards of publication ethics (COPE, etc.).
2. The publisher ensures editorial independence, i.e. editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the scientific significance of the materials and do not depend on commercial, political, or other interests.
3. The publisher provides the necessary organizational, technical, and legal resources for the journal's functioning, including support for reviewing, storing, and distributing publications.
4. The publisher guarantees the long-term archiving of published materials and the preservation of open access.
5. In case of complaints or violations of publication ethics, the publisher, together with the editorial board, considers the situation and takes the necessary measures, including corrections or withdrawal of the publication, in accordance with the COPE recommendations.

Editorial team's ethical obligations:

1. The journal's editorial team is guided by the principles of scientificity, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality.
2. Cooperation with authors is based on the principles of politeness, benevolence, honesty, and transparency.
3. The journal's editorial team checks all manuscripts submitted as original articles for incorrect borrowings. If the editorial team finds numerous borrowings, it acts in accordance with the COPE rules.
4. The editorial team guarantees that all articles submitted for publication are reviewed without prejudice and ensures independent reviewing preserving the reviewer's anonymity.
5. The editorial team does its best to find the most suitable and qualified reviewers in each field of research. Members of the editorial board and the international editorial board can be reviewers.
6. The editorial team decides to publish the material taking into account the opinion of reviewers. Positive reviews are not a sufficient reason for accepting an article for publication. Members of the editorial board make a final decision on publication after the author has finished correcting the article based on the comments of reviewers and members of the editorial board. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board make the final decision when there is a conflict.
7. The editorial team ensures confidentiality in relation to all issues related to the content and review of the manuscript. Information about the manuscript's contents can only be provided to persons involved in its professional evaluation. Unpublished data of the submitted manuscripts may not be used without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas that become known to persons involved in editing or reviewing cannot be used by them for personal purposes.
8. The author has the right to express a reasoned point of view that does not coincide with the editorial team's opinion.
9. The editorial team does not allow publications that contribute to the incitement of social, ethnic, or religious hatred.
10. The editorial team does not have to correspond with authors after they have provided them with the results of the final examination, as well as with authors of letters to the editorial team about the refusal to publish.
11. Nevertheless, should the author disagree with the editorial team's decision to reject the article, the author has the right to appeal in writing to journal's editorial team addressing the Editor-in-Chief, indicating the reasons to support their position. The Editor-in-Chief together with the editorial board consider the appeal. If necessary, they may appoint additional independent review. The editorial board makes the final decision on the appeal and notifies the author in writing.
12. The journal’s editorial team guarantees access to publications on the journal's website and ensures material storage in leading national and international libraries and scientific information repositories.

Reviewers' ethical obligations:

1. The main purpose of reviewing is to provide an objective assessment of the article's scientific characteristics. It is done to help the editor–in–chief and the editorial board make a reasoned decision on the advisability of publishing the manuscript, and authors to improve the material proposed for publication.
2. The reviewer should consider the obtained manuscript a confidential document. It cannot be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editorial board.
3. The reviewer's opinion should be reasoned and impartial.
4. The reviewer should draw the attention of the author and the editorial board to any substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and any other publication that he knows about. The reviewer should provide references to the original source when recommending the author to add references to publications, observations, measurements, or facts.
5. Reviewers should not review 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 article.
6. The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the proposed article if he feels insufficiently competent to prepare a review in this area or cannot review to meet the deadline. The review period may be extended by agreement with the editorial board.
7. The reviewer has the right to request manuscript re-reviewing.

Authors' ethical obligations:

1. By submitting the manuscript for consideration as an original article, authors guarantee that the material does not contain plagiarism and has not been published previously, and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.  The author has the right to withdraw the manuscript at any stage before publication on the website with compulsory notification to the editorial team.
2. Only those who have made a significant contribution to the research and preparation of the submitted material should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are listed, as well as for ensuring that all co-authors see and approve the article's final version and agree to submit it for publication.
3. Authors are aware of and responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, the reliability of information, quotations, data, etc. It is prohibited to use other people's texts without reference to the source and authorship.
4. If the author finds major errors or inaccuracies in the article, the author has to notify the editor of this and cooperate with the editorial team in correcting errors.
5. Authors should participate in the review process, i.e. answer promptly to editorial team's questions, respond to comments from reviewers.
6. When arguing with other authors or journals, authors are to comply with the norms of academic correctness.
7. Authors should notify the editorial team of any conflicts of interest.
8. Information about grants and any other financial support for research should be listed. 
9. General information on any assistance in carrying out the research and preparing the article should be included.