Publication Ethics

The editorial board of "Kyiv Law Bulletin" maintains a high level of requirements for the selection and acceptance of articles submitted for editorial purposes. Ethics guidelines of the editorial board are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, as well as the principles of DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment).

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-reviewers

- 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 take into account a possibility of the conflict of interests if a particular manuscript closely relates to the reviewer’s current or published paper. If there are doubts, the reviewer should refuse to review the manuscripts referring to the conflict of interests;

- 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;

- a reviewer should provide a review without undue delay;

- reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript without the consent of the author.

Ethical Requirements for Research Involving Humans, Animals,
and the Use of Biological Materials and Personal Data

The journal adheres to the requirements of the current legislation of Ukraine and international ethical standards governing the conduct of scientific research involving human participants, the use of personal or confidential data, biological materials, or research involving animals.

If a study submitted for publication falls under the scope of Ukrainian legislation on bioethics, personal data protection, or other regulatory legal acts, authors are required to provide confirmation of approval (clearance) from an authorized body, including an ethics (bioethics) committee or another competent institutional authority.

For research involving human participants, authors must ensure compliance with the principles of voluntary informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and the prevention of harm to research participants. In cases involving the collection and processing of personal data, compliance with the requirements of Ukrainian legislation on personal data protection must be ensured.

The editorial board reserves the right to request additional documents from authors confirming compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements, as well as to reject submissions that do not meet these standards.

DORA Compliance Policy

The journal adheres to the principle that scientific research should be evaluated primarily based on its content, scientific originality, reliability of results, and contribution to the development of the relevant field of knowledge, rather than the prestige of the journal in which it is published. In its editorial policy, the journal follows the principles of responsible research assessment, which involve the balanced and transparent use of both qualitative and quantitative indicators, as well as recognition of the diversity of research outputs, including articles, research data, software, and other forms of scholarly contribution.

The editorial board does not encourage artificial inflation of citation metrics and supports the responsible use of bibliometric indicators.

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.

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 (AI) Use Policy

The editorial board supports innovative technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of scholarly publications. At the same time, we emphasize the need to adhere to the principles of academic integrity, transparency, and responsibility when using AI tools.

Authors are required to clearly indicate in the manuscript where and how AI tools have been used (e.g., for text generation, data analysis, preparation of illustrations, etc.). Submissions that are fully generated by AI without substantial author contribution to the scientific content and its interpretation are not permitted. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and quality of the materials, even if parts of the work were produced with the assistance of AI.

The editorial board may use AI tools to assist in plagiarism detection, text preparation, fact-checking, and other aspects of the editorial process. Decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts remain solely with the editors and reviewers, regardless of any outputs generated by AI tools.

The use of AI must not violate copyright, confidentiality, or lead to data manipulation. Concealing the use of AI or misleading readers about the origin of the text or research results is strictly prohibited.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are responsible for complying with this policy. In cases of violations, corrections, rejection of submissions, or retraction of published articles may be applied in accordance with the editorial policy.

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.