Review

Ethical standards

Editorial of the journal «Bulletin of the National Technical University of Ukraine« Kyiv Polytechnic Institute ». Politology. Sociology. Law ”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, without prejudice, review all manuscripts submitted for publication, 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 the 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 behavior 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 very 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 peer review to ensure objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts

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 return the manuscript immediately.

The reviewer must 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 why their comments are based. 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.

In order to comply with the principles of academic integrity and ethical standards adopted by the international scientific community, a mandatory procedure for reviewing all articles coming to the editorial board of the Bulletin of the National Technical University of Ukraine "Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" is conducted. Politology. Sociology. Right.

Scientific articles that have been submitted to the editorial board and meet the formal criteria are considered at the editorial board meeting for the relevance of the journal topic and for the purpose of determining the circle of reviewers. Reviewing materials relevant to the subject matter of the collections is completely anonymous for the author and the reviewer.

Members of the editorial board are involved in the review, as they determine the profile, relevance of the topic and have publications in the relevant subject areas. The chair and the members of the editorial board are responsible for organizing the reviewing of articles and the maintenance of academic integrity.

THE REVIEWER RATES:

· relevance of the article;

· justification of the problem with important scientific or practical tasks;

· completeness of analysis of recent research and publications on a common issue;

· the relevance of the article's goals to the problem the author is considering;

· scientific conclusions and their relevance to the purpose of the article;

· prospects for further research in this area.

The reviewer also evaluates the terminological uniqueness of the article; knowledge of the author of the scientific literature on the discussed range of problems, including international experience; peculiarities of style and language of the author (clarity of language and style, the need for additional scientific and literary editing, etc.).

The review should contain specific conclusions about the advisability of the publication, indicating the main shortcomings of the article (if any), as well as the conclusion about the possibility of publication: "recommended", "recommended with a correction of these shortcomings" or "not recommended".