Ethics Policy


  • The editor ensures that all submissions to the publication are carefully selected and independently reviewed. The Editorial Board of the UNESCO Chair Journal reserves the right to reject the paper or return it for revision in a tactful manner defined by its policy.
  • The editor scrutinizes without bias all manuscripts submitted for publication evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of racial, religious, national, and political affiliation, as well as the social status or the authors` place of employment.
  • The editor should consider all submitted manuscripts as soon as possible.
  • All responsibility for paper acceptance organization, its unique code assignment, reviewer assignment, ensuring virtual communication between a reviewer and the author, the author's notification of the manuscript publication or rejection rests solely with the editors. A responsible and impartial approach to these responsibilities implies that the Editorial Board takes into account the reviewer`s recommendation, who is a specialist in the relevant scientific field, regarding the submitted manuscript`s quality and veracity. However, papers may be rejected without peer review if the editor-in-chief finds that they do not match the scope of the UNESCO Chair Journal.
  • The Editor-in-chief and Editorial Members do not give any information related to the content of a reviewed manuscript to third parties, other than those involved in the professional evaluation of the paper. After the Editorial Board`s final positive decision (taking into account the reviewer`s positive decision), the paper is published in the UNESCO Chair Journal and on its web page in the original language, posted on the relevant electronic resources of the library of Ukraine and is published on the websites of international scientific and metric databases.
  • In accordance with the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in regard to electronic information resource copyrights, UNESCO Chair Journal website materials may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means (electronic or printed) without the prior written consent of the authors and the UNESCO Chair Journal`s Editorial Board. When using the materials published in the UNESCO Chair Journal in the context of other documents, the above-mentioned source reference is required.
  • The editor respects the author`s intellectual independence and intellectual property.
  • the UNESCO Chair Journal`s Editor’s-in-chief responsibility for and rights to any submitted manuscript authored by the Editor-in-chief are delegated to any other qualified person.
  • If the Editorial Board is given credible evidence that the main content or conclusions of a paper published in the UNESCO Chair Journal are inaccurate, the editorial board facilitates the publication of the corresponding information, pointing out the mistake and, if possible, correcting it.
  • The UNESCO Chair Journal`s Editorial Board is not responsible to the authors and / or to third parties and organizations for any possible damage caused by the paper publication. The Editorial Board has the right to remove a paper already prepared for publication, if it is found out that, in the process of its preparation, someone's rights or the generally accepted norms of scientific ethics have been violated. The Editorial Board informs the author submitting the paper, a person recommending it for publication as well as an organization where the research was done about the fact of the paper being removed.
  • The Editorial Board is responsible for accepting exclusive contracts that restrict the use of such materials in order to protect the authors` legitimate interests. 


  • If the assigned reviewer is not sure whether their scientific qualification corresponds to the level of research presented in the manuscript, they return the manuscript immediately.
  • The reviewer should always objectively and impartially assess the manuscript quality, its experimental and theoretical parts, the material interpretation and presentation, as well as take into account the extent to which the paper content meets established scientific, linguistic and stylistic standards; the reviewer also has to respect the author`s intellectual independence.
  • The reviewer has to consider the possibility of a conflict of interest when a submitted manuscript is closely related to their current or published work. If in doubt, the reviewer has to immediately return the manuscript without peer review notifying the Editorial Board of the conflict of interest.
  • If the reviewer realizes who a manuscript author or a co-author is and is therefore unable to conduct an impartial, objective, and independent manuscript examination, they have to stop the peer review process notifying the UNESCO Chair Journal`s executive secretary that no further work is possible.
  • The reviewer has to treat the manuscript to be reviewed as a confidential document and cannot show the manuscript to others, and discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when a special consultation with scientific editorial board members is needed.
  • Reviewers have to clearly explain and justify their views on the paper so that editors and authors understand what their comments are based on. Any statement on the fact that certain observations, conclusions, and analysis results have already been published has to be accompanied by a reference to the relevant source.
  • The reviewer has to register any cases of insufficient or incorrect citation of other scholars` works by the author directly related to the peer-reviewed paper and should bear in mind that comments on insufficient citation by a manuscript author of research conducted by the reviewer may seem biased.
  • The reviewer should draw the Editorial Board`s attention to a significant similarity noticed between the analyzed manuscript and a certain published paper or manuscript submitted to another print publication at the same time.
  • The reviewer has to conduct a review in a timely manner.
  • Reviewers may not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations presented in the analyzed paper without the author`s consent.


  • The Author`s main responsibility is to provide an accurate description of the research, as well as to objectively present its scientific novelty and practical significance.
  • Paper authors are solely responsible for the content of their papers.
  • Preparing a paper, each author has to comply with the editorial requirements for its formatting.
  • Research results presented in the paper must be reliable and substantiated so that experts in the field can verify it.
  • The author should cite those publications that have a decisive influence on the essence of their scientific problem, as well as those that can provide a reader with a prompt overview of scientists` previous works important for the current research understanding. Except for review papers, the author should minimize citations of works that are not directly related to the content of the paper. The author is obliged to conduct a scientific and literary search to find and cite original publications that describe research closely related to their paper. They also have to cite the sources of the fundamentally important materials used in the paper (if these materials were not obtained by the Author on their own) and the manuscripts authored by each scholar mentioned in the text of the paper as required.
  • The manuscript has to clearly specify any dangerous manifestations and risks associated with the Author's research.
  • When submitting a manuscript for publication, the Author has to inform the Editorial Board of the existing affinity of the presented materials with their papers submitted for publication to other publishers or accepted by them. Copies of these manuscripts shall be submitted to the Editorial Board, specifying the links with the manuscript submitted for publication to another journal.
  • The author is not allowed to submit manuscripts describing the same results to more than one journal in the form of a primary publication, unless it is a re-submission of a manuscript rejected by the UNESCO Chair Journal or withdrawn by the author. It is possible to submit a manuscript of a new paper that expands on a previously published brief preliminary description of the same study. However, when submitting such a manuscript, it is necessary to notify the Editorial Board of the previous paper, which must be cited by the Author in the new manuscript.
  • The author should clearly indicate the sources of all information cited or presented in the paper, except for well-known facts. Information obtained off the books (during conversations, correspondence or discussion with third parties) from another researcher may not be used or presented in this Author`s work without the permission of the scientist who shared it. Information obtained from the provision of confidential services (when reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants) is also used only with the consent of the author.
  • Personal criticism of scientists cannot be considered appropriate under any circumstances. However, when appropriate, published papers may include experimental or theoretical research criticism.
  • The paper co-authors share the responsibility for the results presented in the manuscript. Fictitious names or pseudonyms cannot be mentioned as the Author or Co-author`s names. The author who submits the manuscript for publication is responsible for ensuring that the list of co-authors includes those who actually participated in the paper preparation process. In a paper written by several authors, one of the Authors who submits contact information, documents and is in correspondence with the editors is responsible for other authors` consent to its publication in the UNESCO Chair Journal.
  • Authors have to notify the UNESCO Chair Journal of any potential conflict of interest, such as companies` corporate, consulting, or financial interests, etc., that could be affected by the publication of the results stated in this manuscript. Authors should also ensure that there are no contractual relationships or property rights that could affect the publication of the information presented in the manuscript.


After a re-review analysis of the author's paper and preparation of answers to the reviewers' proposals, the authors need to:

  • pay attention to all the Reviewer (s)` comments
  • describe all changes that have taken place in the content of the paper in the answering letter;
  • take into account the Reviewer`s thoughts, proposals and recommendations on further steps to be taken. If you are sure that the proposed measures will not improve your paper, motivate reasonably why you think so;
  • in the answering letter indicate separately all the points that they agree with and comments that they disagree with;
  • ensure tolerant scientific discussion of all debatable issues;
  • clearly indicate in the paper all the changes made when finalizing the manuscript (highlighting in color);
  • return the revised manuscript and the answering letter within the deadlines set by the Editorial Board;
  • be polite and respectful to Reviewers regardless of their attitude to comments. In addition, the authors have to make necessary changes to the paper proposed by the Reviewer;
  • Remember that the Reviewer is an expert in the field. If the proposals made by an expert do not correspond to the author`s vision, it is probably because some manuscript aspects were not understood right. This means that the paper is written in a style that is not entirely comprehensible making it difficult to understand the research. So, the paper needs improvement to achieve its communicative expediency, perfection and readability.


If to respond to the Editorial Board and Reviewers` comments in a timely, scientifically sound and tactful manner, a successful result in publishing the paper will be achieved without any complications and stress. Dear Authors, avoid such requirements as: "May I get the Reviewer`s phone number (E-mail, Skype) so that I can explain everything?". Do not be persistent when trying to publish a paper.

Do not submit your materials to another scientific collection or journal until one of the following points is clarified:

  • The editors replied that the topic of the paper does not fully correspond to the UNESCO Chair Journal`s scope and topic;
  • The editorial board refused to publish the manuscript without the right to resubmit it to the editorial office;
  • The paper is rejected even after the author has thoroughly and in detail worked through all the Reviewer`s proposals and analytical comments;
  • The author received a reply from the Editorial Board on the refusal to publish the paper based on one Reviewer`s conclusions;
  • the process of reviewing the paper exceeds the time specified by the UNESCO Chair Journal`s Regulations and the Editorial Board for objective reasons cannot speed up the analysis of the manuscript. In this case, notify the Editorial Board that you are withdrawing the paper before submitting it to another collection or journal. Remember! Preparing a paper for publication is a rather complex multi-vector process, so the author should be ready to work calmly and gratefully accept comments, work hard to improve the paper and make necessary changes to the manuscript, tolerantly respond to comments from editors and reviewers. There is no need to do anything superfluous; the author should respond only to comments and letters sent to them.
  • The author can appeal to any editorial decision if it does not meet their scientific expectations and claims.


  1. The Editorial Board (or readers) have the right to take reasonable steps when they suspect any breach of publication ethics. This applies to both published and unpublished papers.
  2. The Editorial Office has no right to refuse to investigate established ethics violations. It is their ethical duty. In these cases, it should, first of all, receive a response from the authors of papers in which publication ethics violation has been established.
  3. The Editorial Board shall make every effort to ensure that the investigation is conducted properly and make constructive efforts to resolve the issue.

If the Editorial Board or the Reviewer has detected dishonesty in the paper materials, they must act in accordance with the rules established by the Committee on Ethics of Publications and in accordance with the specifics of the identified violations. If you find the following violations, follow the algorithms described at:

  • the fact of re-publishing (duplicate publication) is established;
  • fabricated data in the submitted manuscript is found;
  • the existence of a conflict of interest not disclosed in the submitted paper is suspected;
  • it is identified an ethical problem in the submitted manuscript;
  • the need for authorship issue consultation;
  • It is received a request from the Author to add the co-author`s name prior to the publication the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
  • It is received a request from the Author to remove the co-author`s name prior to the publication the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
  • It is received a request from the Author to remove the co-author`s name after the publication the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
  • it is received a request to add the author's name after publication;
  • it is suspected that the included last name does not actually correspond to co-authorship, and is a kind of gift.
  1. If readers find dishonesty in the publications, they must follow the algorithms in each of the following cases on a separate block diagram. If:
  • plagiarism in a published paper is suspected;
  • the presence of fabricated data in a published paper is suspected ;
  • the presence of not disclosed conflict of interest in the published paper content is suspected;
  • the reviewer has appropriated the author's scientific ideas or data;
  • the need for authorship issue consultation


  • Considering the appeal, the Editorial Office acts in accordance with the procedure adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  • The editorial office promptly responds to dissatisfied applicants` complaints and finds ways and means to consider them in agencies specialized in resolving appeals.
  • The editorial office provides information on who and in what way can be addressed by the applicant regarding an unresolved issue or complaint for their constructive resolution.
  • The editorial board based on the principle of scientific discussion and debate priority, gives the criticized paper authors the opportunity to respond to the criticism.