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An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the written consent of the author.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.
Privacy
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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in any research of the editor, reviewers or any other informed person without the written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.
Efficiency
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.
Privacy
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.
