Peer review

Ethical standards

Editorial Board of the Journal "Scientific Notes of the Taurida VI Vernadsky National University. The Public Administration Series ”maintains a certain level of requirements when selecting and accepting articles submitted to the editorial board. These rules are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, adopted in the scientific community.
The editorial calls for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE).

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted to the publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or to return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal's profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article constitute unethical conduct and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The editorial staff adheres to double-blind review to ensure objectivity in the manuscript evaluation

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to do some work on the review.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.

 

  1. All manuscripts are initially reviewed by editors to evaluate their relevance to the subject matter and requirements of the journal.
  2. The submitted manuscripts are sent to the reviewer (one of the members of the editorial board, a specialist in the relevant field). The manuscript is subjected to double-blind peer review: neither authors nor reviewers know each other.

The review process is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

The reviewer concludes that it is advisable to publish the article, indicating the main shortcomings of the article (if any), as well as the conclusion about the possibility of publishing: "recommended", "recommended with correction of these deficiencies" or "not recommended".

The most common reasons for refusing to publish an article are:

– bad or wrong structured publication;

– lack of scientific novelty;

– the article does not have enough actual references to literary sources;

– the article contains theories, concepts, or conclusions that are not fully supported by the data, arguments, or information;

– the article has poor language quality.

  1. The decision is forwarded to the author (s). Articles to be revised are sent to the author (s) along with a review text that contains specific guidelines for revising the article.
  2. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of negative result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further review.

The editorial board does not enter into discussions with the authors of the rejected articles.