Editorial ethics are based on:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations
• International standards for editors and authors
• Ethical Code of the Ukrainian Scientist
• Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit

All manuscripts undergo plagiarism checks using tools like eTXT Antiplagiat and Advego Plagiatus. If plagiarism is detected, the article is immediately rejected.

Not all text borrowing is plagiarism. Proper citations are required. Excessive self-citation is discouraged, though limited reuse of one’s previous work for clarification is permitted.

If the author refuses to address reviewers' comments, the editorial board makes the final decision and will not consider further complaints. Authors may withdraw their manuscript.

Editorial Responsibilities

• Ensure objective, unbiased decisions
• Reject manuscripts outside the journal's scope
• Retract published articles if academic misconduct is found
• Materials may not be reproduced without consent

Authors' Responsibilities

• Present original, law-abiding research
• Avoid data manipulation or fabrication
• Ensure proper citations and no plagiarism
• Declare funding sources and conflicts of interest
• Comply with journal formatting and submission rules

Reviewers' Responsibilities

• Maintain objectivity and confidentiality
• Respect authors' intellectual independence
• Follow COPE guidelines
• Do not share manuscripts without permission

Policy on Mandatory Ethical Approval for Research Involving Humans, Animals, Biological Materials, or Personal and Confidential Data. The Journal requires authors to comply with the principles of research ethics and the applicable legislation of Ukraine concerning the protection of human rights, personal data, and animal welfare. If a manuscript reports research involving humans, animals, their biological materials, or personal or confidential data, approval from an authorized ethics committee (or institutional review board) is a mandatory condition for the manuscript to be considered for review.

This requirement complies with international standards, including the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association (WMA), the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. When Ethics Committee Approval Is Required

Ethics approval is mandatory if the research involves at least one of the following elements:

Research Involving Humans

• Surveys, questionnaires, or interviews
• Medical or psychological interventions
• Participation of vulnerable groups (minors, prisoners, persons with mental disorders)
• Video or audio recording without anonymization

Research Involving Animals

• Any experiments involving vertebrates or invertebrates
• Collection of tissues, organs, blood, or embryos
• Field observations involving physical contact

Personal Data

• Collection and processing of personal data (in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Personal Data Protection”)
• Access to medical records or pre-trial investigation materials
• Analysis of court cases containing identifiable information about parties

Biological Materials

• Samples of human or animal tissues, blood, or genomes
• Cell cultures derived from identified individuals
• Archived biological samples with potential donor identification

2. Information to Be Included in the Manuscript

The manuscript must contain a separate section entitled “Ethical Obligations” including the following information:

• the name and affiliation of the ethics committee (commission);
• the registration number and date of the approval;
• confirmation that informed consent was obtained from each participant or, where required by law, from their legal representative;
• for animal studies—confirmation of compliance with the 3R principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement).

A scanned copy of the ethics committee approval must be submitted together with the manuscript (mandatory attachment at the initial submission stage).

3. When Ethics Approval Is Not Required

Ethics committee approval is not required if the research is limited exclusively to:

• theoretical (doctrinal) analysis without involving participants or collecting empirical data;
• analysis of legislation, publicly available case law, or publicly accessible archival materials without identifying individuals;
• Use of public, fully anonymized data where the identification of individuals is impossible.

4. Consequences of Non-Compliance

• Absence or incompleteness of ethical approval documents at the submission stage—the manuscript will be rejected without being sent for peer review.
• Violation or falsification of ethical approval identified after acceptance—refusal of publication and notification of the author’s affiliated institution.

Violations identified after publication—retraction of the article.

Complaints Handling Procedure

The Editorial Board of the Art of Justice journal adheres to COPE recommendations and is committed to considering all complaints fairly, impartially, and confidentially within a reasonable timeframe.

 

A complaint may be submitted in cases of identified or reasonably suspected:

• Plagiarism – use of others’ texts, ideas, or data without proper attribution;
• Duplicate publication – submission of a manuscript that has already been published or is under consideration by another journal;
• Fabrication or falsification of research data;
• Improper authorship attribution – unjustified inclusion or exclusion of authors;
• Conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial board;
• Breach of double-blind peer review confidentiality.

 

The right to submit a complaint is granted to authors, reviewers, members of the editorial board, and any member of the academic community who has reasonable grounds to believe that misconduct has occurred. Anonymous complaints will be considered only if supported by sufficient factual evidence.

 

A complaint must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Board. The submission must include:

• The complainant’s contact details (full name, affiliation, e-mail address, telephone number);
• The title of the article or manuscript and the issue number (if applicable);
• A clear description of the alleged misconduct;
• Available evidence (copies of texts, references, screenshots, etc.).

By submitting a complaint, the complainant confirms that they are acting in good faith and in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. Knowingly false complaints may result in a refusal to consider future submissions from the respective individual.

The complaint review process includes the following stages:

Preliminary assessment – verification of the completeness and substantiation of the complaint, followed by confirmation of receipt to the complainant.

Notification of the parties – the person concerned by the complaint is informed and invited to provide written explanations.

Collection and examination of evidence – the Editorial Board analyzes all relevant materials, including the manuscript, reviews, correspondence, prior screening results, etc.

Independent expert review – in particularly complex or disputed cases, independent experts may be involved in the evaluation.

Decision-making – the Editorial Board adopts a decision by majority vote and informs all parties accordingly.

Depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct, the Editorial Board may:

• Terminate the proceedings due to insufficient evidence;
• Publish a correction or clarification to the article;
• Reject a manuscript under consideration;
• Retract an already published article;
• Restrict the author’s right to submit materials for a specified period;
• Notify the author’s employing institution of the established violations;
• Refer the case to COPE for further consideration.

The Editorial Board ensures the confidentiality of personal data of all parties throughout the entire procedure. A complainant acting in good faith shall not be restricted in publication rights solely on the basis of submitting a complaint.