Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Zhurnal «Ukrayinsʹka kulʹtura: mynule, suchasne, shlyakhy rozvytku» dotrymuyetʹsya standartiv publikatsiynoyi etyky, zasnovanykh na Rekomendatsiyakh COPE shchodo naykrashchoyi praktyky dlya redaktoriv zhurnaliv. Vid usikh uchasnykiv publikatsiynoho protsesu — avtoriv, redaktoriv, retsenzentiv ta vydavtsya — ochikuyetʹsya neukhylʹne dotrymannya etychnykh norm. Rivnensʹkyy derzhavnyy humanitarnyy universytet (RDHU) yak vydavetsʹ vydannya harantuye, shcho komertsiyni prybutky, reklama ta peredruk ne vplyvayutʹ na redaktsiyni rishennya. I. IYERARKHIYA REDAKTSIYNYKH RISHENʹ Redaktsiya dotrymuyetʹsya takoyi iyerarkhiyi u pryynyatti rishenʹ shchodo publikatsiyi: Retsenzenty nadayutʹ arhumentovani rekomendatsiyi — «pryynyaty», «doopratsyuvaty» abo «vidkhylyty». Rekomendatsiyi retsenzentiv mayutʹ vyznachalʹnyy kharakter, odnak ye konsulʹtatyvnymy, a ne zobov'yazuyuchymy. Redaktsiyna kolehiya na osnovi retsenziy ukhvalyuye poperednye rishennya shchodo rukopysu. Holovnyy redaktor maye vyklyuchne pravo na finalʹne zatverdzhennya abo vidkhylennya statti. Zhoden zovnishniy tysk — instytutsiynyy, finansovyy abo osobystyy — ne mozhe vplyvaty na tse rishennya. -  Rishennya retsenzentiv mayutʹ rekomendatsiynyy kharakter, ale ye klyuchovymy dlya ukhvalennya finalʹnoho rishennya redaktsiyeyu. Ostatochne slovo zavzhdy zalyshayetʹsya za holovnym redaktorom. II. OBOV'YAZKY REDAKTORA TA REDAKTSIYNOYI KOLEHIYI 1. Zahalʹni pryntsypy ta manipulyatsiyi z tsytuvannyam Redaktsiya vystupaye proty budʹ-yakykh form manipulyatsiy iz tsytuvannyam. Tsytuvannya maye gruntuvatysya vyklyuchno na naukoviy relevantnosti. Z·hidno zi standartamy COPE, do porushenʹ nalezhatʹ: Prymusove tsytuvannya (Coercive Citation): vymohy do avtoriv dodaty posylannya bez naukovoyi obgruntovanosti. Obminne tsytuvannya (Citation Stacking): domovlenosti mizh avtoramy abo zhurnalamy pro vzayemne tsytuvannya dlya shtuchnoho zrostannya pokaznykiv. Nadmirne samotsytuvannya: neobgruntovani posylannya na vlasni pratsi, shcho ne mayutʹ pryamoho stosunku do novykh rezulʹtativ. 2. Rehlament samotsytuvannya Rekomendovanyy obsyah posylanʹ na vlasni pratsi ne povynen buty nadmirnym ta maye buty naukovo obgruntovanym. Oriyentovnyy rivenʹ — do 10–20% vid zahalʹnoho spysku literatury zalezhno vid spetsyfiky doslidzhennya (napryklad, dlya tryvalykh tsykliv eksperymentiv abo vuzʹkykh subdystsyplin dopustymyy vyshchyy vidsotok za umovy chitkoho obgruntuvannya). Retsenzenty zobov'yazani zvertaty uvahu na «balastni» posylannya ta rekomenduvaty yikh vydalennya. 3. Konfidentsiynistʹ ta rozkryttya konfliktiv interesiv Redaktor i redaktsiyna kolehiya ne roz·holoshuyutʹ informatsiyu pro podani rukopysy tretim osobam. Neopublikovani materialy ne mozhutʹ vykorystovuvatysʹ u vlasnykh doslidzhennyakh bez pysʹmovoyi z·hody avtoriv. U razi konfliktu interesiv (spilʹni abo konkurentni zv'yazky z avtoramy/ustanovamy) redaktor abo chlen redkolehiyi zobov'yazanyy samousunutysʹ vid roz·hlyadu vidpovidnoho rukopysu. 4. Vykorystannya shtuchnoho intelektu (AI) Redaktsiya dotrymuyetʹsya chitkoyi pozytsiyi shchodo zastosuvannya AI-instrumentiv pry pidhotovtsi rukopysiv: Dozvoleno: movne redahuvannya ta pokrashchennya stylyu, mashynnyy pereklad (z obov'yazkovoyu redaktorsʹkoyu perevirkoyu), poshuk ta systematyzatsiya bibliohrafiyi. Zaboroneno: heneratsiya naukovykh rezulʹtativ, vysnovkiv abo danykh za dopomohoyu AI; falʹsyfikatsiya abo fabrykatsiya danykh z vykorystannyam AI-instrumentiv; zaznachennya AI yak spivavtora rukopysu. Vymoha deklaruvannya: budʹ-yake vykorystannya AI povynno buty chitko zaznachene u rozdili «Metody» abo «Podyaky» iz zaznachennyam nazvy instrumentu ta mety yoho zastosuvannya. Povna akademichna vidpovidalʹnistʹ za zmist roboty zalyshayetʹsya za avtoramy-lyudʹmy. III. ZAKHODY U RAZI VYYAVLENNYA PORUSHENʹ Hradatsiya porushenʹ ta sanktsiyi Redaktsiya zastosovuye dyferentsiyovanyy pidkhid do porushenʹ publikatsiynoyi etyky: Rivenʹ 1 — neznachni porushennya (minor misconduct): Neporozuminnya shchodo vymoh oformlennya, neznachni netochnosti u rozkrytti informatsiyi. Zakhid: poperedzhuvalʹnyy lyst avtoru abo retsenzentu z roz'yasnennyam vymoh. Rivenʹ 2 — pomirni porushennya (moderate misconduct): Nenavmysnyy plahiat, nadmirne samotsytuvannya, nepovne deklaruvannya konfliktu interesiv. Zakhid: vidkhylennya rukopysu + ofitsiyne povidomlennya ustanovy-robotodavtsya avtora. Rivenʹ 3 — seryozni porushennya (severe misconduct): Navmysnyy plahiat, falʹsyfikatsiya/fabrykatsiya danykh, dublyuvannya publikatsiy, porushennya avtorstva. Zakhid: retraktsiya opublikovanoyi statti + zaborona na podannya rukopysiv terminom vid 2 do 5 rokiv + povidomlennya ustanovy ta vidpovidnykh orhaniv. Protsedura roz·hlyadu Budʹ-yaka osoba mozhe nadislaty povidomlennya pro pidozru v neetychniy povedintsi na elektronnu adresu redaktsiyi. Holovnyy redaktor pislya konsulʹtatsiyi z redaktsiynoyu kolehiyeyu initsiyuye roz·hlyad. Usi materialy zberihayutʹsya suvoro konfidentsiyno. Avtoru/avtoram zavzhdy nadayetʹsya mozhlyvistʹ nadaty poyasnennya do vysunutykh zvynuvachenʹ. Za rezulʹtatamy roz·hlyadu ukhvalyuyetʹsya rishennya vidpovidno do rivnya porushennya. Redaktsiya keruyetʹsya alhorytmamy COPE Flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) ta Retraction Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines). IV. OBOV'YAZKY RETSENZENTIV Vnesok u rishennya: retsenzuvannya ye obov'yazk
 
The journal “Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Paths of Development” adheres to the standards of publication ethics based on the COPE Recommendations on Best Practices for Journal Editors. All participants in the publication process — authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher — are expected to strictly adhere to ethical standards. Rivne State University for the Humanities (RSHU) as the publisher of the publication guarantees that commercial profits, advertising, and reprinting do not influence editorial decisions. I. HIERARCHY OF EDITORIAL DECISIONS The editorial board adheres to the following hierarchy in making decisions regarding publication: Reviewers provide reasoned recommendations — “accept,” “revise,” or “reject.” Reviewers’ recommendations are decisive, but are advisory, not binding. The editorial board makes a preliminary decision on the manuscript based on the reviews. The Editor-in-Chief has the exclusive right to final approval or rejection of the article. No external pressure — institutional, financial or personal — can influence this decision. - The decisions of the reviewers are of a recommendatory nature, but are key to the final decision of the editorial board. The final word always remains with the Editor-in-Chief. II. DUTIES OF THE EDITOR AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD 1. General principles and manipulation of citations The editorial board opposes any form of manipulation of citations. Citations should be based solely on scientific relevance. According to COPE standards, violations include: Coercive Citation: requirements for authors to add references without scientific justification. Citation Stacking: agreements between authors or journals on mutual citations to artificially increase the indicators. Excessive self-citation: unjustified references to one's own works that are not directly related to new results. 2. Self-citation regulations The recommended volume of references to one's own works should not be excessive and should be scientifically justified. The indicative level is up to 10–20% of the total list of references, depending on the specifics of the study (for example, for long cycles of experiments or narrow subdisciplines, a higher percentage is permissible, provided that it is clearly justified). Reviewers are obliged to pay attention to "ballast" references and recommend their removal. 3. Confidentiality and disclosure of conflicts of interest The editor and the editorial board do not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to third parties. Unpublished materials cannot be used in their own research without the written consent of the authors. In case of a conflict of interest (shared or competitive relationships with authors/institutions), the editor or a member of the editorial board is obliged to recuse himself from considering the relevant manuscript. 4. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) The editorial board adheres to a clear position on the use of AI tools in the preparation of manuscripts: Allowed: language editing and style improvement, machine translation (with mandatory editorial review), search and systematization of bibliography. Prohibited: generation of scientific results, conclusions or data using AI; falsification or fabrication of data using AI tools; indication of AI as a co-author of the manuscript. Declaration requirement: any use of AI must be clearly indicated in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section, indicating the name of the tool and the purpose of its use. Full academic responsibility for the content of the work remains with the human authors. III. MEASURES IN CASE OF VIOLATIONS Graduation of violations and sanctions The editorial board applies a differentiated approach to violations of publication ethics: Level 1 — minor violations (minor misconduct): Misunderstanding of formatting requirements, minor inaccuracies in disclosure of information. Measure: warning letter to the author or reviewer with clarification of the requirements. Level 2 — moderate violations (moderate misconduct): Unintentional plagiarism, excessive self-citation, incomplete declaration of conflict of interest. Measure: rejection of the manuscript + official notification of the author's employer. Level 3 — severe violations (severe misconduct): Intentional plagiarism, falsification/fabrication of data, duplication of publications, violation of authorship. Action: retraction of the published article + ban on submission of manuscripts for a period of 2 to 5 years + notification of the institution and relevant authorities. Review procedure Any person may send a report of suspected unethical behavior to the editorial office's email address. The editor-in-chief, after consulting with the editorial board, initiates the review. All materials are kept strictly confidential. The author(s) are always given the opportunity to provide explanations for the allegations. Based on the results of the review, a decision is made according to the level of violation. The editorial office is guided by the COPE Flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) and Retraction Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).
 

IV. REVIEWER OBLIGATIONS
Contribution to the decision: review is a mandatory step in decision-making; reviewers' conclusions are advisory in nature.
Competence: if a reviewer doubts his/her own qualifications or cannot complete the review on time, he/she informs the editor and refuses to review.
Confidentiality: manuscripts remain confidential and cannot be disclosed or used for personal gain.
Objectivity: the review is conducted without personal criticism of the author; views must be substantiated.
Source control: the reviewer indicates published works that have not been cited and reports any signs of plagiarism or manipulation.
Conflict of interest: the reviewer recuses himself/herself from reviewing in case of any competing relationships with authors or institutions.
V. AUTHOR OBLIGATIONS
Originality: The manuscript describes a completely original work, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere in any language.
Academic standards: Correct citation of sources, avoidance of artificial inflated metrics, justified self-citation.
Authorship: Only individuals who have made a real intellectual contribution are included in the list of authors; all authors approve the final version of the manuscript. The composition of the authors is fixed before the initial submission and does not change after acceptance.
Disclosure of conflicts: All financial and other significant conflicts of interest, as well as sources of funding, must be indicated in the manuscript.
Correction of errors: An author who has discovered a significant error in his/her own published work is obliged to immediately notify the editors and facilitate correction or retraction.
AI tools: Any use of generative AI is declared in the "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section (see section IV above).

All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review procedure. The authors are responsible for the originality of the text and any errors.
Procedure for considering complaints about violations of academic integrity and publication ethics

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 COPE principles, the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity”, as well as the international standards COPE Guidelines on Good Publication Practice and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE/OASPA/EASE/DOAJ).

The procedure applies to authors of manuscripts and published articles, reviewers, members of the editorial board, and any persons involved in the publication process.

References