Publication Ethics

The Editorial Board of the Scientific Professional Journal “State Security” adheres to the principles of academic integrity, editorial ethics, and international standards of publication practice. In its activities, the Editorial Board is guided by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed by:

– DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals);  
– COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics);  
– OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association);  
– WAME (World Association of Medical Editors); 
– CSE (Council of Science Editors).

These policies apply to all published content of the journal, including special issues. Editorial decisions are made based on criteria of scientific value and quality and are independent of the origin of the manuscript or the characteristics of the authors (nationality, ethnicity, political views, race, religion, etc.).

Ethical Obligations of Authors:  

– Authors guarantee that the submitted manuscripts are original research that do not contain plagiarism and have not been published previously;
– Simultaneous submission of the same work to multiple journals is prohibited; 
– All persons listed as authors must have made a substantial scientific contribution to the work;  
– Authors are obliged to honestly acknowledge sources and adhere to scientific integrity.

Peer Review and Responsibilities of Reviewers:

The Scientific Professional Journal “State Security” uses a double-blind (anonymous) peer-review procedure. The journal’s peer-review procedure, publication ethics, and editorial policy comply with the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), CSE (Council of Science Editors), OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association), WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). This policy ensures objectivity, impartiality, and quality of publications, and complies with the principles of transparency and ethical publishing practice supported by the international scholarly community. Authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities and follow the following stages:

1.Initial Screening by the Editorial Board 
   The Editorial Board checks whether the submitted manuscript meets the formatting requirements, the journal’s scope, and basic quality criteria. Manuscripts with signs of plagiarism or gross violations of scientific integrity are not accepted for peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers
   Each article is sent to at least one independent expert in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific specialization and the absence of conflicts of interest. All reviewers act on a voluntary basis and agree to the confidentiality terms. A reviewer accepts an invitation only if they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can prepare the review within the established timeframe. Reviewers do not agree to review solely to gain access to the manuscript without intending to provide a review. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline or needs an extension, they must immediately notify the Editorial Board. Reviewers do not receive information about the authors (surname, institution, contacts). Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers; all communication is conducted exclusively through the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board ensures technical anonymization of manuscripts and communications. Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the received information and not to use the content of the articles for their own purposes. A reviewer does not transfer the manuscript or materials to third parties and does not involve them in the preparation of the review without prior permission from the Editorial Board.

3. Evaluation
   Reviewers assess: scientific novelty, validity, methodology, formatting, and adherence to ethics. The review must be professional, reasoned, and constructive. The reviewer follows the journal’s instructions regarding the format of the review, provides specific comments, and, where possible, supports general statements with appropriate references. Offensive language, personal assessments of the authors, discriminatory judgments, or unfounded accusations are unacceptable. The reviewer must remain impartial with regard to the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, and other characteristics, the origin of the manuscript, and commercial considerations. The reviewer does not conduct independent “investigations” and does not make public statements regarding detected signs of ethical violations by the author — further actions are determined by the Editorial Board. The reviewer continues to maintain confidentiality of the manuscript materials even after completing the evaluation. If new substantial information emerges after submission of the review that may affect the assessment, the reviewer must notify the Editorial Board. The standard timeframe for preparing a review is up to 21 calendar days. The review must include a clear conclusion: recommended for publication, recommended after revision, or not recommended for publication. The result of the evaluation is a decision by the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ conclusions. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript even with a positive review if it does not correspond to the journal’s scope or standards.

4. Resubmission
   Revised articles may be resubmitted for consideration. In the case of significant changes, the manuscript may be sent for re-review.

Duties of the Editorial Board:

– Decisions on acceptance or rejection of an article are made based on scientific significance, compliance with the journal’s scope, and the quality of the work performed; 
– The Editorial Board guarantees the confidentiality of the peer-review process; 
– The Editorial Board makes decisions independently of the founder, financial, or other influences, guided solely by scientific quality and ethical standards; 
– Unpublished materials may not be used by members of the Editorial Board without the written consent of the authors.

Plagiarism Policy:

– All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using specialized tools;  
– In the event of detection of plagiarism, duplication, or other ethical violations, reviewers are obliged to notify the Editorial Board; 
– In the event of plagiarism, the article is rejected or subject to retraction.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI/LLM): 

– The use of artificial intelligence tools (in particular, Gemini / ChatGPT and analogs) is permitted only as an auxiliary tool and does not relieve authors of responsibility for the content of the manuscript; AI/LLM cannot be listed as a co-author;  
– Authors are obliged to declare the use of AI/LLM in the manuscript (in the “Acknowledgments/Declarations” section or as a separate note), indicating the name of the tool/service, version/model (if available), and exactly how the tool was applied (language editing, summarization, translation, code assistance, etc.);  
– Authors guarantee that the use of AI/LLM has not led to fabrication/falsification of data, invented references/citations, or distortion of results; 
– Authors must respect confidentiality and the rights of third parties and must not upload to AI services any materials/data that are not subject to disclosure (personal data, official information, etc.) if this contradicts legal requirements or institutional policies.

Data, Reproducibility, and Availability of Materials:  

– Authors must provide a sufficient description of methods and materials to enable verification of results during peer review;  
– Authors must either make the data openly available (repository/appendices) or submit a “Data Availability Statement” with justification for any restrictions (confidentiality, personal data, official restrictions, etc.).

Preprint Policy:  

– The journal accepts manuscripts that have previously been posted as preprints on open preprint platforms (provided that the manuscript has not been peer-reviewed and published in another journal); 
– When submitting, authors must disclose information about any existing preprint: platform name, posting date, link/DOI, version (v.1, v.2, etc.); 
– If the article is accepted for publication, authors must update the preprint page by adding a link to the final published version in the journal (DOI/URL) once it becomes available;  
– If the preprint platform allows comments or post-publication discussion, authors are responsible for the correctness of communication and its consistency with the version of the manuscript submitted to the journal.

Prohibition of Citation Manipulation:

– The journal does not permit any forms of citation manipulation, including coercing authors to add citations that are not scientifically justified or requiring citations to specific journals/authors for the purpose of artificially inflating metrics, including excessive self-citation; 
– Recommendations for additional references in reviews must be justified by the content of the manuscript and aimed at improving the quality of the work;  
– Authors may report to the Editorial Board any cases of potential pressure regarding citations; such reports are considered confidentially by the Editorial Board and, if necessary, with replacement of the reviewer.

Appeals Policy:  

– An author has the right to submit an appeal against an Editorial Board decision (rejection or requirement for substantial revision) if they believe the decision is based on factual errors or bias;  
– The appeal must be submitted in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of notification of the decision (unless the Editorial Board sets a different timeframe) and must contain a brief description of the grounds for the appeal, a point-by-point rebuttal to the reviewer’s key comments, and a revised version of the manuscript with explanatory comments; 
– The appeal is considered by the Editor-in-Chief and/or an authorized member of the Editorial Board. In case of a potential conflict of interest, an independent editor may be appointed;  
– Following the appeal, the Editorial Board may: confirm the original decision, appoint additional peer review, or propose revision. The Editorial Board’s decision on the appeal is final.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Violations of Ethical Standards:  

– Complaints regarding manuscripts or published materials (plagiarism, fabrication/falsification of data, improper authorship, violations of research ethics, etc.) should be sent to the Editorial Board’s email address;  
– The Editorial Board conducts a preliminary assessment of the complaint, requests explanations from the authors and/or additional materials if necessary, and may involve an independent member of the Editorial Board without a conflict of interest;  
– The decision may include rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction or editorial note, retraction, or other actions in accordance with COPE recommendations. Complaints are handled confidentially.

Conflicts of Interest: 

– Before beginning the review, the reviewer must declare any circumstances that may affect impartiality (personal, professional, financial, or other). In the presence of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must decline to review or act according to the Editorial Board’s decision;  
– Reviewers may not review works in which they have a conflict of interest (scientific, professional, or personal relationship with the authors);  
– If a potential conflict of interest is identified during the review, the reviewer must immediately notify the Editorial Board and refrain from further processing of the manuscript until receiving instructions;  
– If a reviewer suspects the identity of the author and this may create a conflict of interest, they must notify the Editorial Board;  
– In the event of a conflict of interest, the Editorial Board may replace the reviewer or appoint an independent editor.

Policy on Corrections and Retractions:  

If well-founded suspicions arise regarding a published article concerning substantial violations (e.g., data reliability, research ethics, plagiarism), but the investigation is still ongoing and no final conclusion has been reached, the Editorial Board may publish an editorial note. In the event of serious errors, unreliable data, or ethical violations, the Editorial Board reserves the right to:  
– Publish a correction (erratum);  
– Publish a corrigendum (correction);  
– Retract the article with an explanation of the reason.  
Editorial notes with corrections are published in the next issue and marked accordingly.

Authorship Policy:  

– An author is considered only a person who personally participated in the research, writing, or editing of the text;  
– Changes to the authorship list after manuscript submission are possible only upon a justified written request from all parties.

APC (Article Processing Charge):  

– The journal does not charge any fees for processing, peer review, or publication of articles (no APC).

Open Access Policy:

– Full texts of articles are published in open access on the journal’s website without embargo;  
– Conditions for reuse are determined by the Creative Commons license indicated in the article;  
– Permissions/restrictions on self-archiving (repositories, authors’ personal pages) are defined on the journal’s website.

Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing:

– The terms of copyright and licensing of published materials are indicated on the journal’s website and in the full text of each article (HTML/PDF);  
– The journal page specifies: (1) the copyright holder, (2) the type of license (where applicable — Creative Commons with a link to the license text);  
– Type of license of the scientific professional journal: **CC BY-NC-ND 4.0** — authors permit copying, distribution, and reproduction of the article only on the condition of proper attribution and a link to the original, non-commercial use, and without modifications or adaptations (NoDerivatives);  
– Copyright holder: the authors (Copyright © 20XX Honor and Law).

Compliance with Ethical Standards in Research:

– If the research involves humans or animals, authors must provide confirmation of ethical approval (e.g., a decision of an ethics committee).

Post-Publication Discussions:

– The journal may publish well-founded comments, letters to the editor, or authors’ responses regarding published materials. Messages containing personal insults or violating confidentiality are not published. If necessary, the Editorial Board may initiate publication of corrections, editorial notes, or retractions;  
– Reports of ethical violations should be sent to chiz@nangu.edu.ua.

We encourage you to familiarize yourself with the recommendations:  

– Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine: Procedure for Forming the List of Scientific Professional Journals of Ukraine  
– DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency  
– COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
– CSE Publication Ethics
– Creative Commons