Publication ethics

Publishing ethics

Failure to observe the ethical principles of scientific publishing undermines the authority of science and the quality of scholarly publications. Ethical principles of publishing scientific materials are therefore a guarantee of the development of science and a precondition for improving the quality of authors' research.

In its publishing activity, the editorial board of the journal «Issues of Humanitarian Sciences» strictly observes the generally accepted ethical standards for publishing scientific materials and requires authors to comply with them. To this end, the editorial board follows the Declaration of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers «Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications» and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical standards for authors

– All co-authors must be informed that the manuscript is being submitted to the journal. Each author must therefore sign the manuscript and consent to the publication of their material.

– The order of authors is agreed upon by the authors before the manuscript is sent to the editorial office.

– The manuscript presents the results of original research. Borrowed fragments or statements are cited according to citation rules, with the author and the original source indicated.

– Excessive self-citation, or excessive citation of one's supervisor, superior or colleagues, is unethical.

– The manuscript must be previously unpublished material submitted to the editorial office for the first time.

– The authors of an article are the researchers who took a direct part in writing it, developing its concept, collecting the material, and analysing and interpreting it. Persons who contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, but not enough to qualify for authorship, are listed in the «Acknowledgements» section together with the scope of their work.

Ethical principles of peer review

– A reviewer may not be a member of a long-standing research team that includes the authors of the reviewed work, nor a repeated co-author of any of them in other works.

– A reviewer may not be the academic supervisor (scientific advisor) of any of the authors who are candidates for an academic degree.

– The reviewer must be an expert in the subfield to which the reviewed manuscript is devoted.

– The review must assess the article objectively and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses.

– The reviewer must not use information about the content of the work for their own benefit before it is published.

– The reviewed article is a confidential document; it may not be passed on to third parties for reading or discussion.