Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Culture and Arts in the Modern World follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors to ensure ethics and quality in publication.

Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts (KNUCA) as a publisher of Culture and Arts in the Modern World takes its duties to guarantee a serious approach to all stages of publishing and recognises the responsibilities. Advertising, reprint and/or any commercial revenue do not influence editorial decisions.

Compliance with standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved in the publishing process: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

Editor and editorial board duties

Publication decisions

The Editor decides on the publication of the submitted papers. It is guided by the journal’s policy and is based absolutely on the academic value and the reviewers’ conclusion. The Editor clings to the contemporary regulations regarding defamation, copyright violation and plagiarism. He is entitled to carry out decision-making in consultation with reviewers or the editorial board members.

An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning the submitted manuscript or published paper.

An editor evaluates manuscripts without regard to previous merits, race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, or political philosophy of the authors.


The Editor and Editorial Board do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript (author(s), topic, text, etc.) to anyone other than the corresponding author, (potential) reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in any research of the editor, reviewers or any other informed person without the written consent of the authors. Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third-party advantage. Editor and any member of the editorial board should release themselves from the duties of considering manuscripts in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts. The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests. In case of revealing the competing interests after publication, the corrections should be published. A retraction or expression of concern may be published if needed.

Ensuring the integrity: involvement and cooperation

Culture and Arts in the Modern World will respond to all claims or doubts of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or others. If concerns about the conduct or validity of academic work are raised, the Editorial Board, with the involvement of relevant experts, as appropriate, will assess cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication. The editor will also ask the author(s) about responding to the affairs. Culture and Arts in the Modern World will take this to the institutional level: the journal may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies if that response is unsatisfactory.

In cases when concerns are extremely serious, and the published work is likely to influence the scientific knowledge or practical applications, Culture and Arts in the Modern World may consider informing readers about these concerns by issuing an “expression of concern”, and then publishing explanations of the investigation findings. Otherwise, Culture and Arts in the Modern World may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is persuaded that severe misconduct has happened. Retracted papers will be retained online and conspicuously marked as a retraction for the readers’ benefit.

Anyone may inform the editorial board at any time of suspected unethical behaviour or any type of misconduct regarding a published article.

The editor-in-chief, after consulting with the editorial board, will decide on the potential retraction process initiation. Any evidence must be treated as strictly confidential and only made available to those involved in the review process. The author(s) are always allowed to respond to any allegations made.

If misconduct is identified, it may be classified as either minor or serious.

Minor violations related to misunderstandings are addressed directly with the parties involved (authors/reviewers) without involving other parties. For minor violations, a warning letter is sent to the author or reviewer.

In case of serious violations, the editor-in-chief, after consultation with the editorial board, decides on further actions based on the provided evidence.

If serious violations are confirmed, the following actions may be taken:

  • Publication of an official notice or editorial article describing misconduct.
  • Informing the author’s or reviewer’s employer through an official letter about the misconduct.
  • Prohibition on submission of manuscripts during a certain period.
  • Official retraction of the publication from the Journal following the Retraction Policy.

During the review of complaints regarding unethical behaviour, the editorial board will follow the COPE Best Practice Guidelines (Flowcharts) and the Retraction Guidelines.

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review is an obligatory step in making editorial decisions and, if necessary, improving the paper through editorial communications with the author.


The reviewer, asked for peer review, who feels the shortage of qualification in the research reported in a manuscript or knows about the lack of time that makes his/her review impossible at the appointed time should notify the editor and relieve himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts and supplementary materials received for review must be processed as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with third parties except as authorized by the editor.

Objectivity Standards

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should indicate relevant published papers that have not been discussed/cited by the author(s). Any assertion that an observation, conclusion, or suggestion had been previously reported should be supported by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform about any important similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or arguments obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal or third-party advantage. Reviewers should release themselves from the duties of manuscript consideration in case of any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the author(s), companies/institutions having relevance to the manuscripts.

Reviewer misconduct

Editors will take the reviewer’s misconduct seriously and investigate any evidence of confidentiality breach, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (both financial and non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of severe reviewer misconduct (e.g. plagiarism) will be taken to the institutional level.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable. Authors should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. The participants can be confidentiality protected, and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that the submitted manuscript:

  • describes entirely original work;
  • is not plagiarized;
  • has not been published elsewhere in any language;
  • indicates appropriate citation or quotation if the authors have used the work and/or words of others.

Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g., tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently creates unethical publishing conduct and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors will submit only entirely original works, and proper acknowledgment of other works must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all contributing co-authors (according to the above definition) and no uninvolved co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

The final list and order of authors should be agreed upon before the initial submission of the manuscript. The editors do not make changes to the composition and affiliation of authors after accepting the manuscript.

In the manuscript, authors should specify the affiliated institution where the research was conducted. In the absence of an affiliation, they should indicate their independent researcher status.


As part of the submission process, providing an ORCID ID for all the manuscript authors is required. To establish an automatic connection between authors and their professional activities, the ORCID ID will be published alongside the article.

To create an ORCID identifier, please visit the page at

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All financial support sources for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must notify the journal editor or publisher promptly and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


Neither the editors nor the Editorial Board are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.

All manuscripts submitted for review and publication in Culture and Arts in the Modern World go under double-blind reviews for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. The reviewers' decisions are the only tool for publication in the journal and will be final.



Hames I. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers /COPE. March 2013. V.1. 5p. Available at:

COPE Discussion Document: Authorship

Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. Available at: (