The editorial board is consistently adheres to the publishing standards of publication COPE Code of Conduct confirmed by the COP (Commіttee on Publіcatіon Ethіcs).

Publisher and editors oppose publication of the results of research conducted with violations.

If the publisher and/or editors of the journal become aware of any facts or allegations of inappropriate research behavior, the publisher or editor will consider the fact or allegation.

The publisher and editors are always ready to publish corrections, explanations, refutations and apologies, when necessary.

Editors’ Responsibility. Editors in charge follow the procedures that ensure the quality of the published materials, protect the freedom of copyright, implement the principles of academic integrity, do not allow commercial interests to be compromised by intellectual or ethical standards, always ready to make corrections, explanations and to apologize if necessary.

The editorial board of the scientific publication reserves the right to reject articles that do not meet the requirements and subject matter of the journal.

The editorial board reserves the right to edit the manuscript stylistically and to reduce it preserving the author’s style. Corrections that, according to the editorial board, can change the content of the text, are agreed with the author.  

 Relations between Editors and Authors. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject to publish an article are based on the article, its originality, clarity and consistency, the reliability of the information presented, and the relevance of the subject matter of scientific publication. Editors in charge do not change the decision to publish the article unless there are serious misunderstandings regarding the publication. The procedure for reviewing articles by other scholars is clearly defined, and editors in charge are ready to sunbstantiate any deviation from the described procedure. The scientific publication has a well-defined mechanism for the authors to appeal against the editor’s decision. Editors in charge publish full requirements for the articles, notify the date of article submission  to the editorial board and the decision to publish.

Grounds for refusing to consider the article

  • a complete package of accompanying documents is missing;
  • the design of the article does not meet the requirements of the journal;
  • the topic of the article does not correspond to the profile of the journal;
  • the title of the article does not correspond to the content;
  • the article falls under the signs of academic dishonesty (irrelevant topic; lack of references; lack of research methodology; lack of logic of presentation, argumentation; the article is a compilation, etc.);
  • written at a low scientific level;
  • the materials of the article were previously published in whole or in part in other editions or submitted for consideration to the editors of other journals;
  • the materials of the article are advertising in nature.
Deliberate or repeated submission of a manuscript for the purpose of duplicating an article in different journals is a violation of academic integrity and publishing ethics. In this case, the editors of the collection require explanations from the author(s). At the meeting of the editorial board, a decision is made regarding further publications of such authors in the collection.
If such violations on the part of the author occur more than once, then the editorial board of the collection puts such author on the so-called "black list" for at least two years.

 If errors are found, all authors agree to provide information to refute or correct them.

Authors should provide information on financial support for the research.

 It is forbidden to publish the same research in several journals.

Relations between Editors and Reviewers. Editors in charge publish full requirements for reviewers, in particular, the requirement to keep the reviewed material confidential. They may require the reviewer to disclose any information about a potential conflict of interest before consenting to the review. Editors in charge follow the procedures for protecting the anonymity of reviewers. In addition, editors in charge have the right: 1) to encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues or possible misconduct concerning the review process; 2) to ask the reviewers to comment on the degree of scientific novelty, originality of the analyzed article and to pay attention to the possibility of duplicate publications or plagiarism (compilation); 3) if possible, to provide reviewers with tools to improve access to publications that are directly related to the peer-reviewed article (e.g., hyperlinks to cited articles and bibliographic searches); 4) to inform the authors of any comments on their articles made by the reviewers, if they do not contain offensive comments or slander; 5) to note the contribution of the reviewers in the activities of the scientific publication; 6) to analyze the quality of reviewers’ work and take measures to ensure that it is carried out at a high level; 7) to develop and maintain a database of reviewers, to update it based on the result analysis of the review work; 8) to refuse to cooperate with those reviewers who constantly write incorrect, untimely or poor content reviews.

Relations between Editorial Board Members. The responsibilities of the Editors in charge include: 1) to establish procedures for professional review of articles; 2) to perform the functions of scientific publication representatives, support and promotion of the scientific publication, search for the best authors and best articles, analysis of articles submitted for publication, assignments for writing editorials, reviews and commentary on scientific works.

Editors in charge should notify their interests that may affect their objectivity in editing and reviewing articles (conflict of interest). The interests may be intellectual, financial, personal, political, religious, etc.