Процедура рецензування, публікаційна етика та редакційна політика видання

Review Process, Publication Ethics, and Editorial Policy

1. Review Process (description of the type of review, criteria for selecting reviewers, timelines, documentation procedures, and decision-making processes). During the review process, compliance with international standards is ensured, and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are strictly followed, specifically the COPE Guidelines on Ethics for Reviewers, which align with the guidelines for preparing publications in the international and European research communities. The journal’s policy also complies with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ/OASPA/WAME) and the ALLEA principles of research integrity, and provides for double-blind peer review by at least two independent external experts following an initial editorial screening for relevance to the journal’s scope and basic ethical standards. The manuscript is anonymized and sent to reviewers for evaluation according to standardized criteria: originality and scientific novelty, alignment with the journal’s scope, methodological soundness and reproducibility of results, quality and relevance of the source base, accuracy of the comparative legal analysis, clarity of presentation, and adherence to research ethics and citation standards. All materials submitted for review, as well as the review process itself, remain confidential. The confidentiality of materials and reviews is guaranteed at all stages, in accordance with the principles of data minimization and GDPR requirements. Unpublished data may not be used by editors or reviewers for their own research purposes. To ensure transparency, summary metrics of the editorial process are published (the date the article was first submitted to the journal and the date it was accepted for publication following peer review); an independent appeals procedure and recusal mechanisms are in place in the event of a conflict of interest.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and the absence of potential conflicts of interest, and communication with authors takes place within clearly defined and reasonable timeframes. Reviewers are not permitted to disclose the content of the article, comments from other reviewers, or discuss the review with third parties without the permission of the editorial board and the authors, even after publication.

The editorial board provides authors with guidance on structure, formatting, citation ethics, and open science principles; however, such assistance does not influence the results of the peer review.

The editorial board ensures consistent and uniform use of terminology describing the peer review process.

Stages of Peer Review

1. Initial editorial screening. At the first stage, the manuscript is checked for compliance with the journal’s profile and thematic focus, basic requirements for scientific quality, structure, and formatting, as well as standards of academic integrity. Concurrently, a technical check of the text for similarity (check for academic plagiarism) is performed using specialized software. The mere detection of matches is not decisive: the editorial board analyzes their content, the correctness of citations, the validity of references, and the absence of hidden duplication or other violations. Manuscripts that clearly do not meet the specified criteria may be returned to the authors without being sent for peer review, with an explanation of the reasons.
2. Initial Content Review. The second stage involves an initial content review of the manuscript. This review is conducted by the editor-in-chief, the deputy editor-in-chief, or another member of the editorial board, in compliance with recusal rules in the event of a conflict of interest. At this stage, the relevance of the research, methodological soundness, adherence to the topic, and the presence of an adequate scientific framework are determined, and a decision is made regarding whether to submit the material for external review. If the author is affiliated with the editorial board or the founding institution, a special procedure for independent review is applied.
3. Double-blind peer review. At the third stage, the manuscript accepted for further consideration is anonymized and sent for double-blind peer review. Typically, at least two independent external experts with relevant or related scientific qualifications who have no conflict of interest are involved. Persons associated with the author through a shared institution, co-authorship, academic supervision, a reporting relationship, or other circumstances that could call their impartiality into question are not permitted to review the manuscript.
4. Peer review. Reviewers assess the consistency of the content with the title, purpose, and subject of the study; the relevance of the topic; the methodological quality; the reliability and logic of the conclusions; the quality of the source base; the theoretical and practical significance of the results; as well as adherence to standards of academic writing and integrity. Their conclusions must be well-reasoned, conscientious, and presented in a proper professional manner. In the event of a conflict of interest, failure to meet deadlines, or inadequate quality of the review, the editorial board may replace the reviewer.
5. Notifying authors. This stage involves informing authors of the editorial decision and, if necessary, providing recommendations for revisions. If changes are made, authors submit an updated version of the manuscript along with explanations regarding the incorporation or justified rejection of comments. If necessary, the revised text may be resubmitted for review.
6. Acceptance of the publication for printing. At this stage, a final decision regarding publication is made. It is made by the editor-in-chief, their deputy, or another authorized member of the editorial board, taking into account all review results, editorial assessment, and conflict of interest policy requirements.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), specifically the COPE Guidelines on Ethics for Reviewers, namely:

• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
• Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
• Reviewers should clearly state their opinions, supporting them with necessary arguments and references, and should not spread defamatory information or slander.
• Reviewers must declare any competing interests.
• Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts with which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or ties with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscripts.
• Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the materials provided to them and may not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
• Any reviewer wishing to pass a review request to a colleague must first obtain the editor’s permission.

Special procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted by the editor-in-chief or members of the editorial board.

If the author or co-author of a manuscript is the editor-in-chief, a member of the editorial board, or the executive secretary, such material is reviewed under a separate procedure of independent editorial review in accordance with the recommendations and practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), specifically the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and relevant guidance documents regarding conflicts of interest. This procedure completely eliminates any influence of such a person on the review and decision-making process.

An author who is a member of the editorial board is completely recused from all stages of the review of their own manuscript.

The manuscript is reviewed by a member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. If no such person is available within the editorial board, an external or guest editor may be appointed.

Materials submitted by editors are evaluated on the same basis as other submissions. As a rule, at least two independent external experts are involved in the review process.

If necessary, the editorial board may disclose the use of such a procedure in a note to the published article or in its editorial history, provided that this is consistent with the transparency policy, does not compromise the confidentiality of the review process, and helps to strengthen trust in the publication process.

Criteria for Selecting Reviewers (Pool of Reviewers)

To ensure high-quality, objective, thematically relevant, and timely peer review, the journal compiles and regularly updates a list of independent reviewers in key scientific fields corresponding to the journal’s scope. This approach aligns with the COPE Core Practices recommendations.

The reviewer pool is an organizational mechanism for maintaining the quality of the editorial process and does not constitute a closed or exclusive list of individuals authorized to review. Inclusion in the pool does not imply automatic involvement in the evaluation of every manuscript, just as absence from the pool does not limit the editorial board’s ability to invite another external expert given the specificity of the topic or other circumstances.

The pool may include scholars and practitioners who have agreed to collaborate, possess the appropriate qualifications and up-to-date expertise in the relevant field, and are capable of providing conscientious, well-reasoned, and unbiased reviews. When compiling and updating the pool of reviewers, the editorial board takes into account the candidate’s academic specialization, the scope and level of their publication activity, their experience as an expert or reviewer, their academic reputation, adherence to ethical standards, and their ability to complete reviews in a timely manner.

Information regarding a potential reviewer’s professional qualifications may be verified through details of their affiliation, academic degree, research specialization, profiles in authoritative scientific information systems and registries, publication activity, participation in research projects, editorial or expert activities, as well as other appropriate sources of professional verification. At the same time, scientometric indicators may be considered only as a supplementary indicator of academic activity and, on their own, are not a sufficient or exclusive basis for including a person in the pool of independent reviewers or for involving them in the evaluation of a specific manuscript.

When forming the pool, the editorial board adheres to the principles of institutional, thematic, and, where possible, geographical diversity; avoids excessive reliance on a limited circle of regular experts; and prevents endogeneity within the peer review community, particularly the dominance of individuals associated with the founder, the editorial board, or a regular circle of authors.

Individuals included in the pool are required to comply with the requirements of the peer review policy, the academic integrity policy, and the publication ethics policy.

Exclusion from the pool is possible at the reviewer’s own initiative or by decision of the editorial board in cases of systematic violations of review conditions, detection of a conflict of interest, or other circumstances that make further cooperation impossible.

Review Timelines

The editorial board strives to ensure prompt review of articles; therefore, the review process lasts no longer than two weeks. If a scientific article is rejected, the author is provided with a reasoned rejection stating the grounds for the decision.

Review Documentation Format

Article Title: ______________________________________________

Review Date: _____________________________________________

Main Evaluation Criteria

1. Relevance of the topic

[ ] High

[ ] Moderate

[ ] Low

2. Scientific novelty

[ ] Significant

[ ] Moderate

[ ] None

3. Validity of the results

[ ] Meets standards

[ ] Needs clarification

[ ] Has shortcomings

4. Significance of conclusions

[ ] High

[ ] Needs revisions

[ ] Unsatisfactory

5. Clarity of presentation

[ ] High

[ ] Needs revisions

[ ] Unsatisfactory

6. Quality of formatting

[ ] High

[ ] Needs revisions

[ ] Unsatisfactory

Overall recommendation

[ ] Accept as is

[ ] Accept after minor revisions

[ ] Return for revision

[ ] Reject

Reviewer’s comment (brief):__________________________________

Date and reviewer’s signature: ______________________

Form for documenting the decision to publish

We are pleased to inform you that your research paper on the topic: “…” has successfully passed peer review and has been accepted for publication in the academic journal “International Bulletin on Public Administration and Legal Affairs,” Vol. …, No. … (2026).

Date and signature

of the authorized representative: ______________________

Form for documenting the decision to publish

We hereby inform you that your research on the topic: “…” requires revision / has been rejected due to (reasoned grounds for rejection).

Please take into account the suggestions and recommendations provided

Date and signature 

of the authorized person: ______________________

All documents must be sent to the authors’ email addresses. 

2. Publication Ethics

General Principles

The journal “International Bulletin on Public Administration and Legal Affairs” adheres to publication ethics and follows an editorial policy that complies with recognized international standards and recommendations, primarily those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal’s publication ethics and editorial policy are based on the following principles:

Principles of Authorship Attribution

The journal recognizes that authors of publications are individuals who have created a work through their creative efforts (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works). Any disputes regarding authorship, including the proportion (extent) of contributions by multiple individuals to a published work, shall be resolved independently by the authors and other interested parties.

Principles of Open Access and Data Preservation

The journal ensures permanent access to its content, promoting the free use of research results (published works) by all interested parties. This approach does not conflict with legislation on copyright and related rights (the Civil Code of Ukraine) and aligns with the principles of open science and FAIR data (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), ensuring the integration of Ukraine’s scientific research results into the international and European research landscape.

The journal guarantees that all factual data presented in publications retain their original form (identical to that submitted by the authors or research supervisors). Any changes or deletions of such data are possible only with the consent or at the sole initiative of the author(s).

Principles of Responsible Peer Review

The journal guarantees responsible and timely peer review of all scientific articles in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Recognized domestic and international experts are involved in the review process, primarily including PhDs and professors with high qualifications and significant experience in the relevant field.

Principles of Responsibility of the Editorial Board and Publishers

The Editorial Board and publishers are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and scientific level of all publications. Its representatives ensure the objective review of manuscripts, adherence to publication ethics, and transparency of the review process. Decisions made by its members are based on well-reasoned conclusions and recommendations and do not conflict with international and national regulations. The editorial board also prevents all manifestations of academic misconduct and, based on identified violations and other gaps and discrepancies, refines the foundations and principles of publication ethics.

Principles for Guaranteeing Authors’ Rights

The journal ensures the protection of authors’ rights. To prevent any violations of publication ethics, the journal has established procedures for receiving and reviewing complaints regarding ethical violations, retracting publications, and other mechanisms provided for by Ukrainian law and established practices for resolving contentious issues.

Principles of Ethical Oversight

The journal assumes that any research conducted by the authors is based on the consent of the participants in the relevant activities or on the granting of permissions by authorized persons. All disputes regarding such matters are resolved independently by the authors and the parties concerned.

Principles of Confidentiality

All materials submitted to the journal are considered confidential. Information regarding the content of the manuscript shall not be disclosed to third parties, except for the authors, reviewers, potential experts, members of the editorial board, and the publisher, to whom it is provided in the manner and to the extent necessary for the performance of their respective duties. This approach complies with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Personal Data.”

The use of unpublished manuscripts for personal research or other purposes unrelated to the publication process is prohibited. This complies with the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the protection of authors’ rights to a work (publication).

Principles for Preventing Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the publication process are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If such a conflict is identified, the relevant individuals must refrain from participating in the publication process and notify the Editor-in-Chief. If the Editor-in-Chief is a party to a potential conflict of interest, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief must be notified.

Principles for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

To protect the intellectual property rights of other authors, it is mandatory to properly cite all research findings used. This also applies to supplementary illustrative materials that may contain intellectual property belonging to others.

If a violation of intellectual property rights and/or other ethical standards is established, the editorial board ensures the publication of corrections and clarifications. In certain cases, the establishment of such violations may serve as grounds for retraction of publications.

The editorial board encourages constructive suggestions and recommendations for improving the publication ethics of the editorial policy and raising the quality of the journal.

Based on this:

the editorial board, adhering to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), specifically the COPE General Approach to Publication Ethics for Editors and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices for Scholarly Publishing:

– when making a decision on publication, is guided by a positive reviewer’s conclusion;

– evaluates publications without any discriminatory restrictions;

– combats manifestations of academic misconduct;

– considers complaints from participants in the publication process and third parties;

– guarantees the protection of the rights of participants in the publication process;

– refines the foundations and principles of publication ethics.

reviewers, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and specifically the COPE Guidelines on Ethics for Reviewers:

– review scientific articles;

– provide recommendations for revising scientific articles;

– provide a conclusion with a recommendation regarding: acceptance of the manuscript for publication, return for revision, or rejection.

Authors, adhering to the policy of academic integrity and publication ethics:

– provide original results of their research;

– format materials in accordance with established requirements and recommendations;

– adhere to the rules of academic integrity and publication ethics;

– cooperate with members of the editorial board on all necessary matters.

Other powers, specific rights, and obligations of all participants in the publication process are derived from the foundations and principles of publication ethics. At the same time, they must not contradict the laws of Ukraine and must comply with standard business practices.

By submitting an article and supplementary materials, the author(s) confirm that the presented research has not been published previously.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to review, edit, abridge, or reject scientific articles.

The author(s) are responsible for the accuracy of the information submitted. The author corresponding with the editorial board confirms that all co-authors (if any) have reviewed the final version of the publication and have given their consent to its publication.

No publication fee.

Reprinting of materials is permitted only with the permission of the author(s) and the editorial board.