Publication Ethics
Ethics guidelines of the Editorial Board of journal
"Sloboda Scientific Journal. Psychology"
General provisions
Ethics guidelines of the editorial board are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, International standards for editors and authors, and Ethical Code of Ukrainian Researcher.
The editorial board considers the monitoring of ethics of the manuscripts as one of the aspects of its activities and the peer-review process.
Editors don’t approve the materials which contain insulting statements, manifestations of aggression or any discrimination, or incite ethnic and racial hatred, violate international legal norms and current legislation of Ukraine.
Editors are not responsible for opinions, judgments, results and conclusions made by the authors of articles and published in the journal. They do not represent the point of view of the editorial board.
Editors are not liable to the authors and/or third parties and organizations for possible damage caused by the publication of the article.
The authors are responsible for the originality or any unfair use of the intellectual property of other authors, as well as for the reliability of information, the accuracy of names, surnames, etc.
Editors reserve the right to review the above ethical principles to amend them.
Ethical guidelines for editors
▶ editors take responsibility for everything they publish and thus, all submitted materials are subject to careful selection and peer review. Editors reserve the right to reject an article or send back for improving;
▶ editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process within a reasonable time;
▶ editors are entitled to reject a manuscript without peer-reviewing if it doesn’t meet the editorial policy, ethics and requirements for manuscripts;
▶ editors shall not provide information related to the content of a manuscript under consideration to other persons, except ones involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript;
▶ editors are authorized to withdraw the electronic version of the article published in the printed version of the journal, if someone’s rights or generally accepted rules of scientific ethics are violated. The editors inform the author who provided the article and the organization where the work was performed about the fact of withdrawal of the article. Editors also publish a notice of the fact of withdrawal of the article in the next issue of the journal;
▶ editors allow distributing any articles or extracts from the journal in electronic social networks, but reference to the original source is mandatory. The third parties or organizations are prohibited to publish and / or distribute the journal materials in paper form and data storage devices.
Ethical guidelines for authors
▶ the research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation. Authors should mention dangerous manifestations and risks associated with the research;
▶ researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
▶ researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere;
▶ a manuscript can involve scientifically grounded criticism of a paper of another researcher. The personal comments are not regarded as relevant;
▶ funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed. Authors should guarantee a lack of the contractual relations or
property considerations, which could influence the publication of information contained in a manuscript;
▶ authors should indicate the sources of cited information, which should be properly acknowledged and referenced.
Ethical guidelines for peer-reviews
▶ if an appointed peer-reviewer is not confident that his qualification meets the level of research, he/she should give the manuscript back immediately;
▶ a reviewer should be impartial when evaluating a manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and statement, as well as take into account the correspondence of the research compliance with the high scientific and literature standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
▶ a reviewer should assess a manuscript if he/she has personal or professional relations and if such relations can influence the impartiality;
▶ a reviewer shouldn’t show a manuscript under review others or discuss it with colleagues, only if the reviewer needs professional advice;
▶ reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand the reasons their comments are based on;
▶ a reviewer should indicate any cases of a lack of citations of the papers of other scholars, any significant similarity between the relevant manuscript and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted to another journal;
▶ reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript without the consent of the author.
Procedure for reviewing complaints regarding violations of publication ethics
This procedure defines the procedure for submitting, considering and resolving complaints related to possible violations of academic integrity or publication ethics in journal publications.
A complaint may be filed by an author or group of authors, a reviewer, a member of the editorial board, a reader or other representative of the scientific community.
The complaint is submitted in writing to the official email address of the journal editorial office - psy.spu.2023@gmail.com
The complaint must clearly state:
▶ the contact details of the complainant;
▶ a link to the article/material relevant to the complaint;
▶ a detailed description of the violation with relevant evidence (references, documents, etc.).
Anonymous complaints may be considered if there are sufficient grounds, but usually the consideration requires the name of the applicant for feedback.
The editorial board registers the complaint and conducts an initial analysis of whether the issue falls within the competence of the journal. If the grounds for consideration are confirmed, the editor-in-chief creates a commission of independent experts (if necessary, external experts are involved) who do not have a conflict of interest with the participants in the case. The commission may request additional materials, explanations from the parties and hold consultations with interested parties.
The consideration period shall not exceed 30 calendar days from the date of registration of the complaint (except in cases requiring additional terms).
After consideration, the commission may adopt one of the following decisions:
▶ reject the complaint as unfounded;
▶ recognize the violation as minor and suggest corrections to the material;
▶ recognize the violation as significant and apply measures (refuse to publish the material; withdraw an already published article; prohibit the author(s) from submitting new materials for a certain period of time; notify the author's institution of the identified violations).
The results of the review are notified in writing to the author(s) of the publication and the applicant. Information about the decision may be published on the journal website together with the relevant technical notices.
If the party disagrees with the decision of the commission, it has the right to file an appeal to the editor-in-chief of the journal within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the decision. The appeal is considered by the editor-in-chief with the participation of members of the editorial board or independent experts within the specified period. The decision of the editor-in-chief after the appeal is final.
Artificial Intelligence Policy
The editorial board of the journal "Sloboda Scientific Journal. Psychology" recognizes the active introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into scientific activity and sets clear requirements for their responsible and ethical use in accordance with the principles of academic integrity and international recommendations, in particular the COPE recommendations.
Authors' use of AI
▶ Authors can use AI tools (including generative models for grammar, style checking, translation, or technical editing of text).
▶ An AI cannot be recognized as the author of an article. Authorship implies responsibility for the content of the work, which can only be borne by an individual.
▶ Authors are obliged to:
• clearly state the use of AI tools in the “Methodology” or “Acknowledgements” section;
• ensure that the results, data, analysis and conclusions are the result of one's own scientific work;
• verify the authenticity of information created using AI.
▶ Using AI to generate falsified data, fabricated sources, manipulate images, or research results is a violation of academic integrity.
Use of AI by reviewers
▶ Reviewers should not upload manuscripts or parts thereof to artificial intelligence systems without written permission from the editorial office.
▶ It is prohibited to use AI if it may violate the confidentiality of the manuscript or author data.
▶ The reviewer bears personal responsibility for the content of the review.
Using AI by editors
▶ The editorial board may use AI tools for technical verification of texts (language editing, detection of possible signs of plagiarism, duplication, stylistic errors).
▶ Final decisions on acceptance, revision or rejection of an article are made exclusively by the editorial board.
Failure to notify the use of AI in cases where it significantly affected the preparation of the manuscript may be considered a violation of publication ethics.
If unscrupulous use of AI is detected, the editorial board applies measures in accordance with internal procedures for violations of academic integrity (including refusal to publish or withdrawal of the article).
Procedure for withdrawing published articles
This Procedure defines the grounds and procedure for withdrawing (retracting) published materials in the event of significant violations of academic integrity or publication ethics.
An article may be withdrawn in cases of:
• detection of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or illegal borrowing;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• significant errors in the results of the study that affect the reliability of the conclusions;
• duplication of publication (submission or publication of the same work in another publication);
• violation of copyright;
• establishment of facts of unlawful authorship (inclusion or exclusion of persons without grounds);
• violation of ethical standards of research (regarding research involving humans or animals).
The procedure may be initiated by the editorial board, author(s) of the article, reviewers, readers, or other interested persons, or the institution where the research was performed. The basis for initiating the review is a written request or substantiated facts of a possible violation identified by the editorial staff.
Review procedure
▶ The editorial board conducts a preliminary review of the information and requests explanations from the author(s).
▶ If necessary, a commission is created to review the situation with the involvement of independent experts (in the absence of a conflict of interest).
▶ The decision is made by the editorial board after a comprehensive analysis of the materials.
▶ The editorial board informs the authors of the results of the review and provides them with the right to provide explanations before making a final decision.
In the event of a retraction, an official notice of retraction is placed on the article page, indicating the reasons, and an electronic version of the article is stored with a clear marking “Withdrawn”.
The author(s) have the right to submit a written appeal to the editor-in-chief within 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the decision. The decision based on the results of the appeal review is final.
