Procedure for Handling Complaints on Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 000
 
The Editorial Board of the collection "Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Paths of Development" considers any reports of violations of academic integrity and ethics in accordance with the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The procedure for considering complaints applies to authors of manuscripts and published articles, reviewers, members of the editorial board and other persons involved in the publication process. Complaints may be filed by authors, reviewers, readers, representatives of institutions or any other interested parties and must be clear, substantiated and contain sufficient facts or evidence of possible violations (in particular, plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, incorrect authorship, double submission, conflict of interest, violations in reviewing, unethical behavior on the part of authors, reviewers or editors and other reasons of an important public nature, etc.).

The policy includes the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “of the Law of Ukraine "On Academic Integrity", the recommendations of the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice  (COPE), as well as  the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed jointly by COPE, OASPA, EASE and DOAJ.

The policy includes the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity”, the recommendations of the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (COPE), as well as the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed jointly by COPE, OASPA, EASE and DOAJ.

In its activities, the Editorial Board of the publication (hereinafter referred to as the Editorial Board) is guided by international standards of publication ethics and supports global open science initiatives. The main principles of work are:

1. Quality and objectivity of assessment (DORA principles)

The Editorial Board adheres to the provisions of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). We implement a meaningful assessment of manuscripts, where the priority is:

scientific quality, novelty and methodological soundness;

contribution to the development of the relevant field of knowledge;

minimization of the influence of bibliometric indicators (impact factor, h-index) on the decision to publish.

II. KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
1. Editor-in-Chief
Strategy: forms the international image of the collection, updates the composition of the editorial board.
Control: oversees the transparency of review and compliance with academic integrity.
Decision: has the exclusive right to final approval or rejection of articles (in the absence of a conflict of interest).
Appeals: considers appeals from authors in accordance with the established procedure (see section IV).

ℹ️  Articles by the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board undergo independent evaluation by other members of the board without his participation in making the decision.

2. Editorial board
Organizes independent review and selects materials according to the criteria of scientific novelty.
Informs authors about the status of manuscripts and agrees on final edits.
Ensures anonymity of review and equal rights for all contributors.
III. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

Complaints are accepted from authors, reviewers, readers, representatives of institutions and any interested parties. The complaint must:

be clear and substantiated;

contain sufficient facts or evidence (plagiarism, fabrication of data, incorrect authorship, conflict of interest, etc.);
be sent to the official email address of the editorial office.
Consideration algorithm
Receipt of the complaint: the editorial office confirms receipt within 5 working days.
Preliminary assessment: the editor-in-chief determines the validity of the complaint and forms the composition of the commission (at least 3 people, without conflict of interest).
Information collection: request for explanations from all parties involved. The author is always given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Decision making: within 30 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint.
Notification of the parties: the editorial office informs the applicant and the author of the results of the consideration.

If necessary, the editorial office contacts the author's institution or other relevant bodies. All materials are kept strictly confidential.

supporting international open science and open access initiatives , including the Budapest Open Access Initiative , the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), the Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA) and the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information ;

III. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

Complaints are accepted from authors, reviewers, readers, representatives of institutions and any interested parties. The complaint must:

be clear and substantiated;

contain sufficient facts or evidence (plagiarism, fabrication of data, incorrect authorship, conflict of interest, etc.);
be sent to the official email address of the editorial office.
Consideration algorithm
Receipt of the complaint: the editorial office confirms receipt within 5 working days.
Preliminary assessment: the editor-in-chief determines the validity of the complaint and forms the composition of the commission (at least 3 people, without conflict of interest).
Information collection: request for explanations from all parties involved. The author is always given the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Decision making: within 30 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint.
Notification of the parties: the editorial office informs the applicant and the author of the results of the consideration.

If necessary, the editorial office contacts the author's institution or other relevant bodies. All materials are kept strictly confidential.

4. Author
Submits only his own, previously unpublished research.
Correctly cites sources and avoids artificially inflating bibliometric indicators.
Whenever possible, provides links to research data in repositories (FAIR principles).
Includes only those who have made a real contribution to the list of authors, and agrees the final version with all colleagues.
3. Editorial independence and review

A double-blind peer review procedure is used. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board have complete autonomy in making decisions based solely on the scientific value of the material.

5. Endogamy prevention policy

In order to ensure a high level of scientific independence and avoid conflicts of interest:

The editorial board adheres to the DOAJ selection criteria regarding the restriction of "internal" publications.

The share of articles authored by full-time scientific and pedagogical employees of Rivne State Humanitarian University is limited and does not exceed 20-25% of the number of materials in each issue.

IV. APPEAL PROCEDURE

Authors whose manuscripts have been rejected have the right to file an appeal. An appeal is considered only if there are good reasons:

A significant procedural error was identified in the review process.
The review contains factual errors or a conflict of interest of the reviewer has been identified.
New significant data has appeared that significantly affects the assessment of the work.

- Disagreement with the reviewer's conclusions in itself is not a basis for an appeal.

Procedure for submitting an appeal
The author sends a reasoned written appeal to the editorial office's email address with the subject "Appeal: [title of manuscript]".
The appeal is submitted no later than 30 calendar days after receiving the decision to reject.

Procedure for submitting an appeal
The author sends a reasoned written appeal to the editorial office's email address with the subject "Appeal: [title of manuscript]".
The appeal is submitted no later than 30 calendar days after receiving the rejection decision.
The appeal is considered by the appeal commission consisting of: the editor-in-chief (chairman) and at least two members of the editorial board who did not participate in the initial review.
The consideration period is up to 30 working days from the date of receipt of the appeal.
The decision of the appeal commission is final and cannot be appealed.

The results of the appeal consideration are notified to the author in writing, indicating the justification for the decision.