Authors are required to adhere to high standards of best publication practices. Data falsification or fabrication, plagiarism – including duplicate publication of an author’s own work without proper citation – as well as unlawful appropriation of authorship, are considered unacceptable practices. Any instances of ethical or publication misconduct are treated with utmost seriousness and handled in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which we strive to follow.
This page contains the following policies/procedures:
1. Plagiarism policy
2. Disclosure of funding sources
3. Procedures for withdrawal, correction, or retraction of articles
4. Policy on identifying and managing conflicts of interest
5. Policy on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Plagiarism policy
The Journal’s plagiarism policy is based on the principles of academic integrity, research ethics, and compliance with international standards of publication activity in the field of legal sciences. The Journal proceeds from the understanding that integrity is a fundamental condition of scholarly legal discourse and a prerequisite for trust in the doctrinal conclusions that are published.
For the purposes of this policy, plagiarism means any use of the results of other persons’ intellectual activity without proper and clear reference to the source, including through the reproduction or adaptation of others’ texts, ideas, doctrinal positions, structures of argumentation, results of legal analysis, or authorial interpretations of the understanding of legal norms or case law, where such use results in misleading readers as to authorship, origin, or the degree of originality and scholarly novelty of the relevant research. Violations of academic integrity in legal publications include, inter alia, direct (verbatim) plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, incorrect or concealed paraphrasing of doctrinal sources, self-plagiarism, and manipulative citation that distorts the substance of legal positions or sources.
The Journal’s Editorial Board takes into account that legal research inevitably relies on the analysis of normative legal acts, court decisions, international treaties, and established doctrinal formulations. The use of the texts of laws, subordinate regulations, court decisions, and official documents is not in itself considered plagiarism, provided that the source is clearly indicated and citation rules are observed. Similarly, the reproduction of widely known legal definitions and categories is permissible, provided that such reproduction does not disguise the absence of the author’s own scholarly contribution.
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo a mandatory initial screening using software tools for detecting textual matches, such as Turnitin and Grammarly. The screening results are assessed by the Editorial Board not formally, but with due regard to the nature of the matches, their functional role in the text, the presence of proper references, and the specifics of legal argumentation. Quantitative similarity indicators are not treated as an independent ground for decision-making without a qualitative legal analysis.
Where indicia of a breach of the principles of academic integrity are identified, the Editorial Board applies a differentiated approach. If the breach is technical or immaterial in nature and may be remedied by clarifying references or reformulating certain fragments without changing the scholarly substance of the work, the author may be invited to revise the manuscript. In cases of substantial plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or systemic borrowing without proper scholarly elaboration, the manuscript is rejected. If a breach is identified after publication, the Journal acts in accordance with international standards of publication ethics, including the possibility of issuing an expression of concern, publishing a correction, or retracting the article.
Submission of a manuscript to the Journal constitutes the author’s confirmation that the work is original, is not under consideration by another publication, and contains proper references to all sources used, including normative legal acts, case law, scholarly publications, and other materials. Authors bear responsibility for compliance with the principles of academic integrity and for the reliability of the legal positions presented.
The Journal’s Editorial Board follows the recommendations of leading international organizations in the field of publication ethics and regularly reviews its plagiarism policy in light of the development of standards in legal scholarship and practice. The purpose of this policy is not only to prevent violations, but also to maintain high-quality, responsible, and transparent scholarly legal communication.
Disclosure of funding sources
Authors shall ensure full transparency regarding the sources of funding for the research and the preparation of the publication, in particular by disclosing information about all grants, institutional support, commercial contracts, sponsorship, or other forms of financial or organizational assistance that could have directly or indirectly influenced the research concept, methodology, data collection and analysis, interpretation of results, or the preparation of the manuscript. The absence of external funding shall also be stated as mandatory.
Procedures for withdrawal, correction, or retraction of articles
1. Purpose and scope of the correction or retraction procedures
This procedure governs the actions of the editorial board in cases where, after publication, significant breaches of research integrity or errors are identified that render the results unreliable. The 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 formal withdrawal of a scientific publication by the journal’s editorial board after its release, due to the discovery of significant violations of academic integrity or the reliability of the results.
Withdrawal — the cancellation by the author(s) of a submission request prior to the article’s publication.
Correction (corrigendum/erratum) — an official editorial action taken when, after publication, technical, factual, or formatting errors are identified that do not alter the main scientific conclusions, in order to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record without discrediting the authors.
Expression of concern — a temporary notice issued to alert readers while an investigation is ongoing.
3. Grounds for retraction, correction, or withdrawal
3.1. Retraction is carried out if:
- the data have been falsified, fabricated, or are substantially erroneous;
- plagiarism has been detected;
- improper authorship has been established (including the addition of individuals who did not participate in the research, the omission of legitimate authors, or the misrepresentation of affiliations);
- the author has concealed a conflict of interest.
3.2. Withdrawal is carried out solely at the author’s request and only before the article is published.
3.3. Correction of an article is undertaken in cases where:
- technical or typographical errors are present;
- author errors are identified that do not affect the main research results;
- inaccuracies occur in the indication of authorship or affiliation;
- linguistic or stylistic inaccuracies are found.
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 (by submitting an official letter or by using the feedback form on the website, indicating the subject as ‘Ethics concerns’).
5. Investigation stages
Preliminary assessment (≤ 14 days): The editor verifies the credibility of the allegation and ensures the preservation of all relevant evidence.
Formal investigation (≤ 60 days): A Committee on Research Integrity is established (comprising at least three independent members of the Editorial board and, if necessary, an external expert). The authors are requested to provide explanations and original data.
Decision: The Committee submits its recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief; the final decision is made by the Editorial council by a simple majority vote.
Notification of parties: The author(s), the complainant, and, where appropriate, the relevant 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 of retraction and a concise statement of the reason (without any defamatory language);
- Reference to the investigation (if publicly available);
- Indication of who initiated the retraction;
- DOI and Crossmark status.
Linking: The HTML version of the original article shall first redirect readers to the retraction notice page. The PDF file of the article remains unchanged, but each page must bear a ‘Retracted’ watermark.
7. Technical actions and indexing
Metadata must be updated via CrossRef within 72 hours of publishing the retraction notice.
An open ‘List of retractions’ page must be maintained on the journal’s website.
All versions are to be preserved in the journal’s repository and in the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine.
8. Appeals procedure
The author(s) may file an appeal within 30 days of receiving the notification by submitting new evidence or arguments. The appeal shall be reviewed by an independent member of the Editorial board together with an external expert, and a decision shall be rendered no later than 60 days thereafter. A sucessful appeal results in the replacement of the notice ‘Retraction’ with ‘Correction’ or ‘Notice of exoneration’.
9. Legal and ethical aspects
The editorial office reserves the right to remove an article only in cases of a court decision or when the publication poses a serious threat to health, contains hate speech, or represents a blatant violation of personal honor, dignity, or professional reputation.
All retraction notices are published in open access and are not subject to any restrictions.
10. Policy review
The editorial office shall review this section at least once every two years and publish the date of the most recent 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 are prohibited from using generative artificial intelligence systems or other automated content-analysis tools to process, evaluate, summarize, or formulate conclusions regarding manuscripts submitted for peer review. The transfer of the full text of a manuscript or any substantial parts thereof to any external AI services, including cloud-based or publicly accessible platforms, is impermissible, regardless of the purpose of such use. Peer review must be conducted exclusively by the reviewer personally, in compliance with the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, and personal responsibility for the content of the review. Any breach of this requirement will be regarded as a serious ethical violation and may constitute grounds for removing the reviewer from further cooperation with the journal and for applying other measures provided for under the journal’s policy.
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.
