Publication Ethics

The journal adheres to international standards of publication ethics in accordance with the international ethical rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Their compliance is mandatory for all participants in the review process: authors, editorial board, and reviewers.

Editorial ethics

The editorial board of the journal is governed by the following provisions.
Each issue of the magazine is published on time and corresponds to the established periodicity of the magazine.
The editorial board does not disclose information related to the text of the publication sent by the author, with the exception of persons directly involved in the evaluation of the publication.
The editorial board maintains the confidentiality of reviews and reviewers' identities.
The editorial board reviews the publication objectively and impartially, based on the scientific value of the work submitted for publication.
The selection of reviewers and the editorial discussion of the publication takes into account the possible conflict of interests of the author.
The editorial board carries out permanent advisory and informational work with the authors, aimed at fulfilling the requirements of the international SCOPUS and Web of Science databases for the design and content of the materials submitted for publication.
The editorial board is guided by current Ukrainian and international legislation on copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editorial board ensures that the discussion of research materials submitted for publication takes place without any restrictions on religious, political, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, race and gender.

Editors may not use research materials from unpublished manuscripts submitted to the journal for their research without the written consent of the authors of those manuscripts.

Members of the editorial board should not participate in the review of manuscripts in the event of a conflict of interest due to competitive, joint or other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors or organizations related to the submitted work.

The editors of the journal "Research on the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology" send the authors of the submitted materials a summary of the reviews received from the reviewers, or a reasoned refusal.

Duties and responsibilities of authors

Co-authors of the article are persons who made a significant contribution to the formulation and solution of the research questions presented in the materials of the article submitted for publication.

The authors of the article are responsible for the content of the article, the reliability and novelty of the research results submitted for publication, and the accuracy of the cited bibliographic references. Inaccurate, and even more so, incorrect indication of a literary or archival source is unethical.

The presented research results should have a clear interpretation, be based on a reliable source and historiographical base. The historiography of the problem used in the study should correspond to the topic of the study. The authors of the article should provide, based on the results of the analysis of previous publications, an objective assessment of the state of the problem investigated in the article, the purpose and goals of the work, as well as provide a description of the means used to solve the research tasks and the significance of the results obtained.

When using the works, statements and research results of other authors, it is necessary to cite the relevant publications and provide bibliographic references to them. At the same time, you should use those publications that are directly related to the topic of the research presented in the article, and had a significant impact on the essence of the work. It is necessary to refer to previous publications that are important for understanding the research conducted.

Criticism of previous studies, which takes place in the article submitted for publication, should be conducted from a scientific standpoint and be justified. It should not have a personal character. Criticism should not be motivated by reasons related to religious, political, ethnic, racial, gender or sexual orientation.

Presented research results must be original. Plagiarism in various forms is unacceptable for a scientific article submitted for publication in a journal. Plagiarism in any form is a violation of copyright and indicates the unethical behavior of the author(s) of the presented article. Authors are required to properly formalize borrowings in the form of citations or references.

Authors should not submit an article for publication in the journal that has already been published in another journal or is under consideration by the editorial board of another periodical. The author must inform the editorial office about similar articles presented or accepted for publication.

The author's duty is to faithfully refer to the comments made by the reviewer or the editorial board, and to clearly adhere to the deadline set by the editorial board for removing comments to the submitted article, which determines the possibility of its publication.

Author(s) by submitting an article agree that their research will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) license

Ethics of reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in the review process. They must adhere to the following basic ethical guidelines according to the COPE Ethics Guide for Reviewers

Responsible and ethical behavior of all participants in the review process: authors, editorial board, reviewers.
Reviewers are required to review ethically and responsibly.
Reviewing should be conducted objectively; the basis of review should be the scientific value of the presented publication.
Reviewers and journal must communicate clearly with each other to ensure timely, consistent, and unbiased peer review.
Reviewers must adhere to the review deadline recommended by the journal's editorial board.
Reviewers must notify the journal's editorial board of any conflicts of interest that may influence its opinion on the manuscripts.
Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work prior to its publication for their own benefit.
A reviewer who wishes to refer a peer review request must first obtain permission from the journal's editorial board.
The reviewer's expert assessment is based on the evaluation form of the submitted publication developed by the journal's editors Review form

Procedure for considering complaints regarding violations of academic integrity and publication ethics

The editorial board of the journal "Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology" adheres to a zero-tolerance policy for violations of academic integrity. The editorial board considers complaints regarding plagiarism, data falsification, authorship manipulation, and conflicts of interest in accordance with the COPE.

Filing a complaint
Complaints can be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, and institutions to the editorial board's e-mail: varfolomey44@gmail.com

The submission form is in writing. The complainant's contact details must be provided.
The complainant must provide specific evidence of the relevant violations.
Anonymous complaints are considered as an exception only if the editorial board receives convincing evidence of gross violations.

Initial review

The editor-in-chief conducts an initial analysis of the validity of the complaint during the working week and notifies the complainant of the receipt of the complaint.
The consideration and publication of the unpublished manuscript are suspended until the investigation is completed.

Formation of an expert commission
A temporary expert commission is created to review the complaint in detail, consisting of:

The editor-in-chief and 2-3 members of the editorial board
The members of the expert commission must not have a conflict of interest with any of the parties.
An independent expert in the field of research may be involved in the work of the commission.

Investigation process

The editorial board addresses the authors with an official request for explanations. The authors must provide a response within 10 calendar days.
The commission analyzes the text of the manuscript of the article, similar materials specified in the complaint, and the explanations of the author(s).
The investigation is conducted confidentially until a final decision is made.

Decision-making and possible sanctions
Based on the results of the investigation, the editorial board makes one of the following decisions:

Rejection of the complaint: if it is unfounded (informing the applicant and authors).
Requirement to correct violations: if the violations are minor and unintentional
Refusal to publish: if the violation is detected in the manuscript at the review stage.
Retraction (Recall): if there are gross violations. detected after the publication of the article.

The editorial board officially informs about the decision:

The person submitting the complaint and the authors.
Management of the institution where the authors work (in case of confirmation of gross violations