Publication ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The journal is committed to a high standard of editorial ethics and maintains a high level of requirements for selection and accepting of the articles submitted by authors. They are regulated by the Certificate on State Registration, and Quality Standards of Scientific Paper and Its Presentation adopted in the scientific community. Editorial board practices the principles of ethics of scientific publications upon recommendations of  Committee of Publication Ethics, foreign professional associations and other Ukrainian and foreign research institutions and publishers.

These policies support our primary duty as a research publisher to ensure that authors who entrust us to publish their work do so in the confidence that we will take every effort to make sure that it is as discoverable, accessible, understandable, usable, reusable and shareable as possible. The journal publishes all its articles only after the positive response in a result of blind peer review.

Malpractice in academic publication is thus an act that endangers development of scholarly knowledge.  Therefore, it is critical to prevent publication malpractice and to act ethically and collegially for all involved parties, including authors, reviewers, and editors.
Based on practices advised by Committee on Publications Ethics (, Elsevier Publishing Ethics (, and Scopus (, the Editorial Board approved the following guidelines for editors, reviewers and authors of the Ideology and Politics Journal.

  1. Duties of Editor and Editorial Staff Members

1.1. The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.  The editor is guided by this code and constrained by such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.  The editor’s decision should be based upon his/her best judgment and opinions of other editors or reviewers. An editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it as requiring improvement. The author is obliged to improve the article according to the remarks of the reviewers and the editorial board.

1.2. The editor and any editorial staff evaluate all submitted manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation of the authors. An editor may take into account relationships of a manuscript under consideration to others previously offered by the same author(s).

1.3. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and other editorial staff members. After a positive decision has been made about a manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.

1.4. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor’s or any other editorial staff member’s own research without the written consent of an author. However, if such information indicates that some of the editor’s own research is unlikely to be profitable, the editor could ethically discontinue the work. When a manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of an editor as to create a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript. 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. 

  1. Duties of Peer-Reviewers

Reviewing helps the Editor to make a decision about the manuscript and by cooperation with the Authors to raise the quality of the manuscript. Reviewing is an essential component of formal scientific communications. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2.1. Peer review provides the editor in making decisions in regard with the publication of a manuscript in the journal.  In some cases, peer-reviewer may assist the author in improving the paper through the editorial communications.

2.2. Selected peer-reviewer may be excused from evaluation of the submitted material if he/she feels 1) unqualified to review this research, or 2) that he/she cannot review the manuscript promptly, or 3) when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest.

2.3. Each and every manuscript received for review is to be treated as confidential document.  The manuscripts must not be disclosed to others except as authorized by the editor.

2.4. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, and avoid personal criticism

2.5. Peer-reviewers should identify relevant publication that has not been cited by the author. It is also expected that a peer-reviewer calls to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he/she knows.

2.6. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Peer-reviewers should excuse themselves from assessing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or institutions connected to the texts.

2.7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.

2.8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

For more guidance in their work, the IPJ peer-reviewers use advice from the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  1. Duties of Authors

3.1. All authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed.  Underlying ideas and data should be represented accurately in the paper.  The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior are unacceptable.

3.2. It is expected that all authors submit entirely original works. Usage of ideas, texts, and/or words of others must be properly cited. It is also expected that authors identify publications that have been influential for their research.

3.3. It is expected that authors do not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently creates unethical publishing conduct and is unacceptable.

3.4. Whole responsibility for content of articles and for the fact of publication rests with author(s). Editors do not bear responsibility for probable damage caused by publication of a manuscript to authors or third parties. Editors have the right to withdraw the article already published in case somebody's rights or generally accepted norms appear violated. Editors inform author(s) of the article, persons who gave recommendations and representatives of organization, where the research was held, about the fact of withdrawal.

3.5. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the design and execution of the reported research.  All who have made contributions to the manuscript are to be listed as co-authors.

3.6.Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each report gives a well-rounded account of a particular aspect of the general study.

3.7. It is expected that authors disclose any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results of their research.  All sources of support for the author/research should be disclosed in the submitted manuscript.

3.8. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co-authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.