Publication ethics

The scientific journal “Economics and Region” strives to provide the highest standards of ethics. According to this, all parties to the publishing process – authors, journal editors, reviewers – are expected to act according to established standards of ethical behavior and to fulfill their responsibilities. The journal's editorial board adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and expects all potential authors to accept these principles before submitting articles for publication.

 

Ethical standards of publication

In developing the ethical standards of the journal's publication policy, the editors followed the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the experience of foreign professional associations and other Ukrainian and foreign research institutions and publishers.

An important feature of the professional scientific community is the adoption of a moral code that establishes the basic rules of conduct and responsibility of members of the scientific community to each other and to the public. Such a code is determined by the intention to provide maximum benefit to the professional community and to limit actions that could serve the interests of individuals, as well as to ensure the intellectual property rights of the author. All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the Plagiat.pl system.

 

The ethical responsibilities of editors

1. All submissions are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject an article or return it if it requires improvement. The author is obliged to improve the article in accordance with the remarks of the reviewers and the Editorial Board.
2. The editor should consider all manuscripts proposed for publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript on its own merits regardless of the race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
3. The editor should review the manuscript submitted for publication without delay.
4. The full responsibility for accepting or rejecting an article rests with the editor. A responsible and reasonable approach to duty requires that the editor address the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers, PhDs of the required specialty. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if the Editorial Board considers them inappropriate for the journal.
5. The editor and members of the Editorial Board should not disclose any information about manuscripts under consideration to anyone other than those whose professional advice is required. After a positive decision on a manuscript has been made, it should be published in the journal and on the journal's website.
6. The editor has to respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
7. Editorial responsibility and authority over any manuscript written by the editor and submitted to the Editorial Board should be transferred to another qualified person, such as a member of the Editorial Board.
8. If the editor presents convincing evidence that the basic gist or conclusions of a report published in the editorial journal are incorrect, the editor should facilitate the publication of an appropriate report that points out the mistake and, if possible, corrects it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the mistake or by the original author.
9. The author may request that the editor not contact certain reviewers when reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to contact one or more reviewers if the editor feels that their opinions are important for a fair review of the manuscript. This may occur, for example, when a manuscript conflicts with a potential reviewer's previous work.

 

The ethical responsibilities of authors

1. The main responsibility of the author is to present an accurate account of the research conducted, as well as an objective discussion of its relevance.
2. The author should know that journal space is a limited resource and should use it wisely and economically.
3. The initial research report should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to allow authors and researchers to replicate the work. Upon request, authors should make an effort to provide samples of unusual material not available elsewhere, with appropriate material transfer agreements to limit the scope of use of the material in ways that protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
4. The author should refer to those publications that have influenced the definition of the essence of the article presented, which in turn will direct the reader to the previous publication, which is necessary for understanding this research. With the exception of the review, citation of an article not related to this study should be minimized. The author should do research to find and then cite original publications describing closely related research. Critical materials used in the publication must also have references to sources, in case they do not belong to the author of the article.
5. Any unusual risks that arise during the study should be clearly identified in the manuscript.
6. Fragmentation in the description of the study should be avoided. A scholar who has conducted a large-scale study of a system or group of interrelated systems should organize the publication of the study so that each publication contains some aspect of the overall study.
7. When submitting a manuscript for publication, the author should inform the editor of related works that the author has submitted to the publisher or to print. Copies of these works should be submitted to the editor with an indication of the connection between these studies.
8. The author is not permitted to submit papers describing the same research to more than one collection in print, unless it is a resubmission of previously rejected papers. In general, submissions that are an expanded summary of previously published research are permitted. However, when reviewing materials, the editor should be informed of the previous publication, and that publication should be referenced.
9. The author must state the source of the information provided, unless it is publicly known information. Information obtained privately, in conversation or during correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used in the publication without the permission of the owner. The same should be done with information obtained privately, such as in the review of manuscripts or grant submissions.
10. Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes be criticized or even harshly criticized by other scientists. When appropriate, such criticism may be highlighted in a publication. However, personal criticism is by no means acceptable.
11. Co-authors of the publication should be those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the submitted work and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be cited in the footnotes or in an acknowledgment from the author. An administrative connection to the study does not indicate co-authorship (but sometimes it is appropriate to thank for the administrative assistance received). Deceased persons who meet the criteria for inclusion as co-authors must also be included, with the date of death indicated in the vignette. No fictitious name may be included as an author or co-author. The author who signs a manuscript for publication is responsible for the inclusion of the appropriate persons as co-authors. The same author should forward a draft copy of the publication to the co-author and obtain the co-author's consent for publication.
12. The author should inform the editor or the readers of the manuscript of any potential or existing competing financial or other interests that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the manuscript. None of the authors may have any personal financial interest or be employed by an entity that has a financial or other interest that could affect the results described in the publication.

 

The ethical obligations of reviewers

1. Because article review is an important step in the publication process and, since then, in the application of the scientific method, every scholar is required to do part of the review process.
2. A selected reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to evaluate the research in the manuscript should return it to the editor.
3. The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, its description and presentation, in compliance with the highest scientific standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
4. The reviewer should consider the occurrence of a conflict of interest if the work being reviewed is closely related to the reviewer's work that is being finalized or published. When in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript without a review, informing the editor of the conflict of interest.
5. The reviewer should not evaluate the work of persons-authors or co-authors-with whom the reviewer has personal or professional connections, if those connections would distort the judgment of the manuscript.
6. The reviewer must be aware of the confidentiality of the manuscript received for review. It should not be shown or discussed with others, except in special cases when special advice is required; in that case the persons of these advisors should be reported to the editor.
7. Reviewers should explain and justify their judgments so that the editor and authors understand the substance of the comments. Any assertion, observation, deviation, or denial should be supported by appropriate citation. Unsupported conclusions of the reviewer (or authors in context) have value and should be avoided.
8. The reviewer should be prepared for the authors' inability to cite the relevant work of other scholars, remembering that complaints that the reviewer's own research did not contain enough citations may seem self-serving. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any similarities between the work being reviewed and any published articles or manuscript accepted in another collection.
9. The reviewer must act quickly, keeping the time frame in mind.
10. Reviewers may not use or disclose unpublished material, controversy, or interpretation contained in the manuscript in question, except as agreed upon with the author. If this information indicates that the reviewer's work will not be fruitful, the reviewer may not proceed on ethical grounds.