"UKRAINIAN CULTURAL STUDIES". Public Administration  is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific competence through peer-review and a strict ethical policy. The editors strive to prevent any infringements of professional ethical codes, such as plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, bogus claims of authorship in the journal.

The journal follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and follows the COPE Flowcharts for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct.

The journal is not liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to, or arising out of the use of the journal content.

The editorial board follows the recommendations of Code of Conduct for Editors (COPE) and of valuable practice of world-leading journals and publishers as well.

  1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors should understand that they carry personal liability for the provided text of manuscript; that suggests the following principles:

1.1. To provide reliable results of the research. Definitely wrong, knavish or faked statements equal to unethical behavior and can be considered as inappropriate.

1.2. To provide guarantees that the results of research stated in the manuscript are independent and original. In case of other work areas usage or appropriations of statements by other authors, this work should have corresponding bibliographic references with mandatory definition of the author and primary source.

1.3. To understand that authors carry initial liability for novelty and reliability of the scientific research results.

1.4. To recognize contribution by all the people engaged in the process of research or set the character of the presented scientific work. In particular, this article must have bibliographic references to the publications which had a meaning during the research. 

1.5. To present original manuscript to the journal which hasn’t been sent to other one and hasn’t been under consideration, and also article hasn’t been published in other journal. 

1.6. To guarantee the right membership list of co-authors. This list should have all the people who made an essential intellectual contribution in the concept, structure and carrying out or interpretation of the given work results. 

1.7. In case of detection of critical mistakes or uncertainties in the work at the stage of its consideration or after publication, it is necessary to inform the editorial staff of the journal hereof immediately and to make a collective decision concerning an error confession and/or to correct it as soon as possible. 

  1. Ethic principles in the reviewer’s activity

A reviewer carries out a scientific expertise of author’s materials, so peer reviewers should be impartial, following the next principles:

2.1. Expert assessment should help the author to improve quality of the article text and the head editor to make a decision for publication.

2.2. Respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.

2.3. Can’t be the author or co-author of the reviewing work, and also research advisor and/or employees of the department where the author works.

2.4. Declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.

2.5. Only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.

2.6. Declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.

2.7. Follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.

2.8. Should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.

  1. Principles of professional ethics in activity of editorial Board

During the activity editorial staff, editorial-and-publishing group, and members of the editorial group of the journal carry liability for publication of author’s works that leads to the following main principles:

3.1. During the decision making concerning publication the head editor is guided by reliability of the presented data and scientific importance of the considered paper.

3.2. The head editor shouldn’t have conflicts of interest towards the articles he refuses or apply.

3.3. The head editor carries liability for the decision which articles will be published or refused. Meanwhile he is guided by the policy of the journal and follows juridical restrictions, avoiding libel, author’s copyright violation and plagiarism. In order to make a decision the head editor may consult with the members of the editorial staff and reviewers.

3.4. The editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

3.5. The head editor, employees of editorial board, editorial-and-publishing group and editorial group of the journal can’t expose information about an article to nobody, except the authors, assigned potential reviewers and other editorial board members, and sometimes a publisher.

3.6. Not published data, got from the manuscripts presented for consideration, can’t be used by the head editor, employees of editorial board, editor-and-publishing group or editorial group for personal profit or given for third party (without author’s written permission).

3.7. The head editor shouldn’t allow information to publication if there are enough evidences that this article is a plagiarism.

3.8. An article, in publication case, is posted in free access; the authors’ copyrights are saved.

3.9. The head editor together with the publisher shouldn’t ignore the claims concerning the considered articles or published materials. In any conflict situation they should take measures for violated rights’ restoration, and in case of mistakes discoveries they should assist in corrective publication or disclaimer.

3.10. The head editor, members of the editorial staff, and editorial-and-publishing group should support confidentiality of names and other information concerning the reviewers. If it is necessary, in decision making for new reviewer attraction, this reviewer can be informed about previous ones.