Authors are expected to follow high standards of best practice in publishing. Falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, including duplicate publication of an author’s own work without proper citation, and misappropriation of authorship are unacceptable practices. Any cases of ethical or publishing misconduct are taken very seriously by us in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE), which we strive to follow.
This page contains the following policies/procedures:
1. Procedure for article retraction (withdrawal)
2. Conflict of interest policy
3. Policy on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Procedure for article retraction (withdrawal)
1. Purpose and scope
This procedure governs the actions of the editorial board in cases where, after publication, significant violations of research integrity or errors are discovered that render the results unreliable. This document is mandatory for all editors, authors, and reviewers, and applies to all materials published by the journal in both electronic and print formats.
2. Key terms
Retraction — the designation of an article as invalid, while retaining the text in the archive with a watermark labeled “Retracted.”
Withdrawal — the removal of an article prior to the release of the final version of record.
Correction (corrigendum/erratum) — the publication of corrections that do not undermine the validity of the main conclusions.
Expression of concern — a temporary notice to readers issued while an investigation is ongoing.
3. Grounds for retraction
An article may be retracted if:
- Data were falsified, fabricated, or contain significant errors.
- Plagiarism or self-plagiarism occurred without proper citation.
- Copyright, ethical, or legal norms were violated (e.g., confidentiality, defamation, rights of animals or humans).
- There is evidence of manipulation in the peer review, authorship, or citation process.
- The author concealed a significant conflict of interest.
4. Initiators of the procedure
- The Editor-in-Chief or members of the editorial board.
- The author(s).
- Readers, reviewers, institutions, or other third parties (via official letter or electronic form on the website marked “Ethics Concerns”).
5. Investigation stages
Preliminary assessment (≤ 14 days): The editor verifies the validity of the claim and ensures preservation of relevant evidence.
Formal investigation (≤ 60 days): A Research Integrity Committee is established (comprising at least three independent editorial board members and, if necessary, an external expert). Authors are requested to provide explanations and original data.
Decision: The Committee provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief; the final decision is made by the Editorial Board by a simple majority vote.
Notification of parties: The author(s), complainant, and, if applicable, the affiliated institution are provided with a reasoned written decision.
6. Publication of retraction notice
Format: A standalone notice article titled “Retraction: [Original Title]”, signed by the Editor-in-Chief (and/or the authors).
Content includes:
- Full bibliographic reference of the original article;
- Date and reason for retraction (brief, without defamatory language);
- Reference to the investigation (if publicly available);
- Indication of who initiated the retraction;
- DOI and Crossmark status.
Linking: The article’s HTML page redirects first to the retraction notice. The PDF version of the article remains unchanged but carries a “Retracted” watermark on each page.
7. Technical actions and indexing
Metadata must be updated via CrossRef within 72 hours of publishing the retraction notice.
An open “Retraction List” page is maintained on the journal’s website.
All versions are preserved in the journal’s repository and the Vernadsky National Library.
8. Appeals procedure
Authors may file an appeal within 30 days of being notified, by submitting new evidence or arguments. The appeal is reviewed by an independent editorial board member and an external expert. A decision is rendered no later than 60 days from submission. If the appeal is upheld, the “Retraction” may be replaced with a “Correction” or “Notice of exoneration.”
9. Legal and ethical aspects
The editorial board reserves the right to remove an article only in cases of a court ruling, significant threats to health, incitement to hatred, or egregious violations of personal honor, dignity, or business reputation.
All retraction notices are published in open access and are not subject to any restrictions.
10. Policy review
The editorial board reviews this section at least once every two years and publishes the date of the latest revision.
Conflict of interest policy
1. Purpose and scope
This policy outlines how authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher prevent, identify, and manage conflicts of interest (COIs) to maintain readers’ trust and comply with widely accepted standards of publication ethics and transparency.
2. Definition
A conflict of interest is a divergence between an individual’s private interests and their responsibilities in conducting unbiased scholarly or editorial work. COIs may arise from financial (e.g., paid consultations, equity holdings, grants) or non-financial (e.g., personal relationships, political, ideological, academic, or institutional affiliations) sources.
3. Subjects required to disclose
Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishing staff.
4. Disclosure procedure for authors
At submission: The manuscript must include the standard statement:
“The author(s) have no / have potential financial or personal conflicts of interest…”
After peer review: If a sponsor is added, employment changes, or a patent is obtained, the author must submit an updated disclosure form.
Upon publication: If a conflict of interest is declared, the editorial team includes this information in the published article.
5. Assessment and management of COIs
Initial screening: A technical editor checks for the presence of a COI statement in the manuscript.
Editorial review: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the COI might compromise objectivity. If necessary, an independent editor or additional reviewer is appointed.
Decision outcomes:
- Minor/transparent COI → Proceed with publication including the disclosure;
- Significant, unresolved COI → Manuscript rejection;
- Unclear cases → Referring to the Ethics Committee (≥ 3 editorial board members + an external expert).
6. Undisclosed COIs discovered post-publication
If a COI is discovered or reported after publication, an investigation and request for clarification are conducted. Possible outcomes include a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction if the bias is deemed significant.
7. Transparency and data retention
All COI declarations are retained for a minimum of 5 years in the editorial system. Metadata regarding competing interests are submitted to Crossref.
8. Measures in case of violations
|
Violation |
Possible Actions |
| Minor | Article correction |
| Significant, impacting conclusions | Expression of Concern → Investigation → Retraction or Correction |
| Systematic nondisclosure | 2-year submission ban; notification of affiliated institution |
9. Appeals
Authors or reviewers may appeal decisions related to conflicts of interest within 30 days of notification. The appeal is reviewed by an independent member of the editorial board. A decision is issued within 60 days.
10. Policy review
The editorial board reviews this section every two years.
Policy on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
1. Purpose and Scope
This Policy establishes the principles, rules, and procedures for the use of generative artificial intelligence models (e.g., large language models, image-generation systems) by all participants in the Journal’s editorial process — including authors, reviewers, editors, and technical staff. It complements the Code of Research Integrity, COPE’s ethical guidelines, and the applicable legislation of Ukraine and the EU.
2. Key definitions
- Generative AI — algorithms that create new text or other data; examples include ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek.
- AI-assisted editing — purely linguistic/stylistic correction or translation, without the generation of new substantive content.
- AI Declaration — a mandatory section of the manuscript titled “Statement on the Use of Generative AI.”
3. Fundamental principles
- Human responsibility: Only humans can be recognized as authors; AI cannot be listed as a co-author.
- Transparency: Any use of AI beyond purely technical editing must be fully disclosed.
- Integrity and accuracy: Authors are responsible for factual accuracy and for ensuring no fabricated sources are used.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts under peer review must not be uploaded to open-access AI services.
- Copyright Compliance: Works without human contribution are not eligible for copyright protection; legal responsibility rests with the author.
4. Use of AI by authors
- AI-assisted editing — permitted; no disclosure required.
- Text or analytical content generation — permitted only with thorough fact-checking and description in the Declaration (specifying tool name, version, purpose, and extent of generated content).
- Image/graphic generation — permitted only when methodologically justified; images must be labeled “Created using [tool]”, with a corresponding explanation in the manuscript.
- Transfer of rights to AI or listing AI as co-author — strictly prohibited.
Sample AI declaration. While preparing the manuscript, the author(s) used ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI, version …, access date …) for the initial translation of Section 3 and for summarizing some sources. All AI-generated content was thoroughly reviewed and edited by the author(s), who take full responsibility for the final text.
5. Use of AI by reviewers
- Reviewers must not copy manuscripts or substantial portions thereof into open AI platforms.
- Reviewers may use local or institutional AI tools to improve the style of their own review, provided no manuscript content is disclosed. Such use must be briefly mentioned in the review.
6. Use of AI by editors and staff
- The use of closed (non-public) AI tools is permitted for technical tasks such as similarity checks, reviewer identification, and basic linguistic analysis.
- Final editorial decisions – including acceptance, rejection, or revision requests – must be made exclusively by a human.
7. Copyright and licensing
By submitting a manuscript, the author affirms ownership of all rights to content created with the help of AI. If AI-generated images are used, the author guarantees that no third-party rights are infringed and, where possible, documents the training data source of the model. AI systems cannot be parties to copyright transfer agreements; rights are transferred from the human author to the publisher under the journal’s standard licensing terms.
8. Detection of violations and sanctions
The editorial team may use tools to detect AI-generated content. Violations of this Policy may result in:
- A request to revise or supplement the manuscript;
- An official Expression of Concern;
- Retraction of the published article;
- Notification of the author’s employer or funding agency.
9. Personal data protection and confidentiality
No personal data, trade secrets, or other protected information may be transmitted to third-party AI tools unless compliance with applicable laws and the journal’s confidentiality policy is assured.
10. Policy review
Due to the rapid evolution of technology, the editorial board conducts annual or ad hoc reviews of this document. The updated version takes effect upon publication on the journal’s website.
