GENERAL EDITORIAL POLICY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

General Ethical Principles

The collection of scientific papers «Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology”» adheres to the norms and rules established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All requirements are available on the website: http://www.publicationethics.org/.

All authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the journal’s activities are obliged to familiarize themselves with and adhere to these standards, as well as all relevant laws and regulations, in particular the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Editorial Board strives to ensure high standards of transparency, objectivity, and integrity at all stages of the publication process.

The collection of scientific papers «Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology” actively combats any cases of academic misconduct and ensures prompt and transparent consideration of any complaints or concerns related to the ethical aspects of publications. Our goal is to maintain trust in scientific research and to ensure the publication of only reliable and ethically impeccable materials.

 

Editorial Board and Editors’ Responsibilities

The Editorial Board consists of: the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Editors.

Editorial activities related to the content of the journal, the processes of article selection and peer review, are independent and free from the influence of the organizations that support the journal.

The Editorial Board and its members are responsible for making decisions on the publication of articles submitted to the journal. The Editorial Board is guided by the journal’s editorial policy and is bound by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to refuse publication of submitted manuscripts if it is determined that they do not meet the relevant standards regarding content and formal aspects. The editorial staff will notify the authors of the results of the manuscript review within 60 days from the date of its submission to the editorial office.

Editors must not have any conflict of interest regarding articles they are considering for publication. If an editor believes that there is a likelihood of a conflict of interest in connection with the review of a submitted article, the selection of reviewers and all decisions regarding the manuscript are made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board, who evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific content, without any racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political bias.

The Editor and editorial staff must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the written consent of the authors. Information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

Editors and editorial staff must take all reasonable measures to ensure the anonymity of reviewers before the authors prior to, during, and after the evaluation process, as well as the anonymity of the authors before the reviewers until the completion of the review procedure.

 

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers are obliged to provide timely, competent, and unbiased written feedback on the scientific value and scientific significance of the manuscripts.

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s profile, the relevance of the research topic and the methods used, the originality and scientific significance of the information presented in the manuscript, the style of presentation, and the scholarly apparatus.

Reviewers must inform the Editor of any well-founded suspicions or known possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. Reviewers should point out relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and inform the Editor of any substantial similarities between the reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or under consideration for publication elsewhere, if they are aware of such. Reviewers should also inform the Editor of any parallel submission of the same manuscript to another journal, if they are aware of it.

Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the sources of funding for the research. If such conflicts exist, reviewers must immediately notify the Editor.

A selected reviewer should decline to review the manuscript if he or she:

– has a recent publication or patent for an invention with the authors (or one of the authors) of the manuscript;

– collaborates or has recently collaborated with the authors (or one of the authors) of the manuscript;

– has a close personal relationship with the authors (or one of the authors) of the manuscript;

– has a financial interest in the subject of the work;

– feels unable to be objective;

– does not have the appropriate qualifications to review the research described in the manuscript;

– is unable to review the manuscript within the established timeframe.

Reviewing must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly express their views, supporting them with arguments.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. Information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

The journal conducts double-blind peer review. Reviewers must be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors in their comments.

 POLICIES ON COLLABORATION

The collection of scientific papers «Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology”» strives to cooperate with researchers and scientific institutions from all over the world, promoting openness and international knowledge exchange.

However, since February 24, 2022, due to the unprovoked full-scale armed aggression of Russia against Ukraine, the editorial board of the collection has terminated cooperation with:

– individuals and legal entities who are residents of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, or are located on the territory of these states;

– persons who are directly or indirectly sponsored by these states.

USE OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS AND GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) TOOLS

The collection of scientific papers “Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology” adheres to the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) regarding chatbots, ChatGPT and scholarly manuscripts, as well as the position of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on authorship and AI tools.

Large language models (LLM) and generative artificial intelligence tools (such as ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Microsoft Copilot, etc.) cannot be listed as authors of an article.

Authors must clearly indicate in the manuscript the use of tools based on large language models and generative AI for generating data or code, collecting, processing, analyzing or interpreting data (specifying which tool was used and for what purpose) in the sections “Methods” or “Acknowledgements”. Photographs, videos or illustrations created wholly or partly using generative artificial intelligence are unacceptable. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures must be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission of the manuscript so that an individual review can be conducted. Concealing the use of artificial intelligence tools is unethical. The use of artificial intelligence-based tools for editing and spell-checking does not need to be declared. The results of AI work should not be cited as primary sources to support specific claims.

Editors and reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of editorial work and the peer review process. Editors must not share information about submitted manuscripts or peer review reports with any tools based on large language models and generative AI. Reviewers must not use any tools based on large language models and generative AI to create peer review reports. Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical and undermines the transparency of editorial work and peer review. The editorial and review processes are confidential, and the use of AI tools on a manuscript makes it public, violating the principle of confidentiality, disclosing confidential information publicly, and jeopardizing transparency.

 

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS PROCEDURE

Readers who have comments or complaints about published articles should first contact the corresponding author to try to resolve the issue directly before contacting the editorial board.

The editorial board can be contacted in cases where it is impractical to contact the authors, if the authors did not respond, or if the problem was not resolved.

The editorial board should also be contacted in cases where the complaint or appeal concerns violations of academic integrity and/or publication ethics.

Complaints and appeals concerning violations of academic integrity by participants in the publication process (authors, reviewers, members of the editorial board) will be handled in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity” from the moment it enters into force. Violations of academic integrity subject to consideration include, in particular: academic plagiarism (Article 24), fabrication (Article 27), falsification (Article 28), attribution of authorship (Article 25), dishonest use of results generated by artificial intelligence (Article 29), and dishonest evaluation (Article 30). In the event that a violation is confirmed, the editorial board applies the response measures provided for in Article 19 of the Law: refusal to publish, retraction of the article with mandatory publication of the reason, and also informs the management of the institution where the violator (or violators) works or studies, for the application of sanctions provided by law (Articles 22–36).

The editorial board is guided by the principles of responding to violations of academic integrity defined in Article 20 of the Law: mandatory and timely response, impartial (non-discriminatory) attitude towards persons against whom a report has been received, proportionality of the violation and response measures, as well as transparency of procedures. The processing of reports is carried out in accordance with Article 37 of the Law, which guarantees the person against whom the report is being considered the right to be informed about the start of the procedure, to familiarize themselves with the inspection materials, to provide explanations and to be present during the consideration.

The editorial board will coordinate its actions with the applicant, the author(s) and the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board to investigate, correct or resolve any problems or complaints.

Complaints, comments or requests for updates regarding the scientific validity, ethical or legal aspects of the article, or the process of its peer review will be further examined where appropriate. All complaints, comments or requests for updates regarding published articles are investigated by the editorial board with the support of the editorial board and final approval by the editor-in-chief. For ethical reasons, final decisions are made by the editorial board to promote adherence to the core principles of publication ethics formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Where necessary, consultations will be held with other persons and institutions, including university management or experts in the field. A lawyer may be involved in considering the complaint if it has legal implications.

Personal comments or criticism are not accepted. All complaints are investigated, including anonymous ones. Applicants may request that the editorial board consider their complaint confidentially, and the editorial board, any editor-in-chief or other members of the editorial board will attempt to do so to the extent appropriate and in accordance with our internal procedures.

Decisions on corrections, comments and responses, expressions of concern or refutations resulting from the investigation are made by the editorial board and communicated to the authors.

If a complaint is not considered justified, further consideration will continue only if additional information is provided to substantiate the comment/violation.

Applicants may not receive updated information on the status of the investigation until a final decision is made, but applicants will be notified if an update is published. The editorial board and members of the editorial board are not obliged to provide additional information. Communication will be terminated if it is not considered fair or respectful. Readers with complaints or comments should take into account that an investigation requires time, which, according to the internal regulations of the journal, should not exceed 3 months.

The editorial board of the journal closely cooperates with authors and editors to promote adherence to the core principles of publication ethics formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We encourage the use of COPE resources available on the website. All manuscripts must meet the standards of ethical conduct. When we become aware of ethical issues, we are committed to investigating and taking the necessary actions.

The publisher and editors are always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, responses and apologies if there is a need for it.

 

ARTICLE RETRACTION PROCEDURE

Violation of the publisher’s, copyright holder’s or author(s)’ legal restrictions, violation of professional ethical codes and research misconduct, such as multiple submissions, duplicate or overlapping publications, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and data falsification, undisclosed use of tools based on large language models and generative artificial intelligence, honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that was later found to be faulty), unethical research or any serious violations require retraction of the article. Sometimes retraction may be used to correct errors in submission or publication.

For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and the person initiating the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. Standards for dealing with article retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly organizations, and this practice has been adopted for article retraction by the collection of scientific papers «Economic Herald of State Higher Educational Institution “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology”»:

– in the electronic version of the retraction notice, a link is provided to the original article; – in the electronic version of the original article, a link is placed to the retraction notice, which clearly states that the article has been retracted; – the original article remains unchanged, except for a watermark on the PDF file that indicates on each page that the article is “retracted”.