The editorial policy of the journal is based on the principles of academic integrity, transparency, and responsibility, in accordance with international standards, in particular those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Code of Conduct), the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), as well as the recommendations of leading academic publishers and scholarly communities. Adherence to these standards ensures high-quality publications, objective peer review, and ethical interaction among all participants in the publishing process.

The editorial board does not permit the publication of research results obtained in violation of ethical standards. In cases where instances of research misconduct (including plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, etc.) are identified, the editorial board conducts a thorough investigation in accordance with international procedures. Where necessary, corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies may be published.

If the publisher and/or editors become aware of any facts or allegations of inappropriate research conduct, such cases will be duly examined. The publisher and editors are always prepared to publish corrections, explanations, retractions, or apologies when required.

Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial board ensures:

- compliance with high standards of scholarly publishing;

- unbiased and confidential peer review;

- protection of academic freedom and intellectual independence of authors;

- prevention of commercial or personal interests from influencing editorial decisions;

- prompt response to ethical violations.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject submissions that do not comply with the journal’s scope or publication requirements, as well as to perform linguistic and technical editing of manuscripts in agreement with the authors.

Relations with Authors

Editorial decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript are based on its originality, clarity, coherence, reliability of the presented data, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editors do not reverse publication decisions unless serious issues arise after acceptance.

The peer review process is clearly defined, and editors are prepared to justify any deviations from established procedures. The journal provides a transparent mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions. Authors are informed about submission dates and final decisions regarding publication.

Decisions are made based on:

• scientific novelty and relevance of the research;
• methodological rigor;
• logical consistency and quality of argumentation;
• alignment with the journal’s thematic focus.
• Authors are required to:
• ensure the originality of their work;
• avoid simultaneous submission to other journals;
• provide accurate data and proper citations;
• disclose sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest.

If errors are identified, authors are expected to cooperate in their prompt correction.

Grounds for Rejection

The editorial board may reject a manuscript in cases of:

• mismatch with the journal’s scope;
• non-compliance with formatting requirements;
• lack of scientific novelty or methodological soundness;
• evidence of academic misconduct;
• duplicate or prior publication;
• presence of promotional or non-scholarly content.

Intentional duplicate submission is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in restrictions on future submissions.

Authorship and Co-authorship Policy

Authorship is defined in accordance with international standards (COPE and recommendations of Elsevier).

An author is a person who:

• has made a significant contribution to the conception, methodology, or analysis of the research;
• has participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript;
• has approved the final version of the article;
• takes responsibility for the content of the publication.

Individuals who do not meet these criteria but contributed to the research should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section.

Changes to authorship after submission are not permitted. In the event of authorship disputes, the editorial process will be suspended until the issue is resolved.

Relations with Reviewers

The journal adheres to the principles of confidentiality, anonymity (double-blind peer review), and objectivity in the evaluation process.

Editors provide clear guidelines for reviewers, including the obligation to maintain confidentiality. Reviewers may be required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment.

Additionally, editors may:

• encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues or suspected misconduct;
• request evaluation of scientific novelty and originality, including detection of duplicate publications or plagiarism;
• provide tools to facilitate access to relevant literature;
• share reviewer comments with authors, excluding offensive or defamatory remarks;
• acknowledge the contribution of reviewers;
• monitor the quality of reviews and ensure high standards;
• maintain and update the reviewer database;
• discontinue cooperation with reviewers who consistently provide low-quality or untimely reviews.

Interaction with the Editorial Board

The responsibilities of editors include: establishing procedures for high-quality peer review; representing and promoting the journal; attracting high-quality submissions; evaluating submitted manuscripts; contributing editorial articles, reviews, and commentaries.

Members of the editorial board: contribute to maintaining high academic standards; attract high-quality research; participate in peer review and strategic development of the journal; adhere to ethical standards and disclose conflicts of interest.

Conflict of Interest

All participants in the editorial process (authors, editors, reviewers) must disclose any circumstances that may influence the objectivity of the evaluation or publication process, including financial, professional, or personal interests.

Journal Policy on Intellectual Property

The Journal adheres to international ethical standards set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and ensures full transparency in matters of intellectual property. Authors and readers are informed about:

- copyright and licensing conditions;

- publication fees and possible article processing charges (APCs);

- prior publication policy, defining the eligibility of manuscripts that have been previously disseminated or screened for plagiarism.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The Journal follows COPE guidelines, as well as recommendations of leading publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature), regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence in scholarly communication.

AI is considered solely as an assisting tool and cannot replace the author’s academic responsibility. All outputs generated with AI assistance must be critically reviewed and scientifically interpreted by the author.

Authors are required to: disclose the use of AI in manuscript preparation; submit a “Declaration of AI Use” together with the manuscript; include a dedicated AI use statement within the manuscript.

The use of generative AI for image creation or modification is permitted only when methodologically justified and fully disclosed. The Editorial Board applies transparency principles regarding its own use of AI tools, including screening and editorial assessment procedures. The use of AI in peer review is not encouraged; however, any such use must be disclosed by reviewers.

The use of the GAIDeT declaration is recommended: https://panbibliotekar.github.io/gaidet-declaration/index-uk.html

Policy on Research Ethics Approval

Where research involves human participants or animals, authors must provide documented ethical approval from relevant ethics committees (e.g., bioethics or research ethics boards).

Such documents must be official, properly issued, and signed by authorized representatives. Copies must be submitted with the manuscript or upon editorial request.

Confidentiality

Authors’ personal data (names, email addresses) are used exclusively for editorial and publishing processes and are not shared with third parties.

Post-Publication Communication

The Journal supports open scholarly dialogue regarding published works. Post-publication discussion may address clarifications, critical comments, or identified errors.

All manuscript amendments require author approval, except for minor technical corrections that do not affect scientific content.

Discriminatory, offensive, or unethical statements are strictly prohibited in all forms of scholarly communication.

Corrections and Post-Publication Amendments

Minor errors (typographical issues, formatting inconsistencies, reference inaccuracies) are corrected through an updated PDF version accompanied by a correction notice. The original version is archived and retained for transparency.

Major Corrections

Substantive errors affecting the interpretation of results or the scientific integrity of the work are addressed through a formal correction notice (Correction/Erratum).

Such cases may include: changes in authorship; discovery of errors in data or results; incorrect presentation of tables, figures, or methodological elements.

Final decisions regarding corrections are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the authors and the Editorial Board.