Relationships between authors, editors and reviewers in our journal are based on academic benevolence, objectivity of ratings and priority of scientific quality. The Editorial board of Problems of Pedagogic Education follows the principles of Code of Conduct for Editors as defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular  Code of Ethics of the scientists of Ukraine

Problems of Pedagogic Education adheres to COPE guidelines for retractions.

We adhere to clear ethical principles to ensure that content is produced and disseminated responsibly and ethically.

Accuracy and fact-checking. We publish only reliable information, thoroughly fact-checking before publication, and promptly correcting any errors in a transparent manner.

Editorial independence. Our decisions are independent; third parties are not able to influence the content.

Transparency. We openly declare any conflicts of interest or connections with third parties, providing clear links to sources and contributors.

Diversity and inclusion. We respect and support diversity by representing different perspectives in our content.

Privacy. We respect the right to privacy, protecting personal information in accordance with applicable laws.

Copyright. We respect intellectual property and avoid copyright infringement.

Non-discrimination. We do not publish content that discriminates against individuals or groups on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.

Responsibility. We take full responsibility for the content we publish and respond promptly to comments and complaints.

Problems of Pedagogic Education is committed to upholding high ethical standards in human research. To ensure compliance with internationally recognized guidelines, authors submitting manuscripts based on human research should adhere to the following requirements:

• If the research involves human subjects, the editorial board should ensure that the authors adhere to ethical guidelines and data collection practices in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects)
• All research involving human subjects should receive approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee before the start of research. Authors should clearly state the name of the approving body and include the approval number in the manuscript.
• Potential participants should make their own decision as to whether they wish to participate or continue to participate in the study. This is done through a process of obtaining written informed consent, which should ensure that participants fully understand the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study. A statement that such consent has been obtained should be included in the “Methods” and “Ethical Considerations” sections of the manuscript.

• Anonymity and confidentiality: Measures to protect the identity of participants and the confidentiality of data should be detailed in the submission. For research that includes identifiable data, additional safeguards should be demonstrated.

We follow the latest Core Practice Guidelines for Editors and Journal publishers as outlined by the COPE on the following practices:

 

• Authorship and contributorship
• Conflicts of interest
• Post-publication review
• Data
• Peer review
• Plagiarism
• Research ethics
• Journal management
• Publication practices
• Diversity (DEIA)

 

FAIR PLAY

Manuscripts shall be evaluated for their scientific quality, regardless of author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality or political opinions.

EDITORS RESPONSIBILITIES

The Editor-in-chief shall be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and consults with other editors or reviewers about the decision to publish.

Editors

• have full authority to reject or accept the article, guided by objective scientific criteria and the conclusions of reviewers;
• guarantee the quality of materials that they publish or approve for publication;
• contribute to the correction of errors found or reject materials in the event that such correction is impossible for one reason or another;
• should identify any conflicts of interest;
• should ensure the confidentiality of information relating to submitted manuscripts;
• undertake to defend the freedom of scientific expression;
• should provide anonymity of reviewers.

If editors have suspicions about the authenticity, originality or ethical correctness of submitted paper, its publication is postponed until all doubts are eliminated. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

See also: International Standards for Editors and Authors 

                                                                         

AUTHORS RESPONSIBILITIES

Authors must:

• ensure that they have written truly original works;
• have significant contribution to the research (if a paper has several authors);
• guarantee obtained permission for use of copyrighted materials;
• certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
• identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript;
• disclose in their manuscript any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the assessment of their manuscript.

Information obtained by authors privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. By submitting an article to the editorial board, the authors agree that (in the case of publication in the paper version of the Journal) their text will be automatically published in the online version of the Journal (under open access).

See also: "Доброчесна публікація. Міжнародні стандарти для авторів" .

                                                             

REVIEWERS RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers must:

• notify Editorial staff of any conflicts of interests that may determine their findings;
• protect the confidentiality of information relating to the manuscript;
• be objective and constructive in their reviews.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in  reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.

See also: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. 

RETRACTION OF PUBLICATIONS

General Provisions 

1. The scientific article text recall from a publication (retraction) is a mechanism for correcting the published information and warning readers about the matter that a published scientific article contains serious faults or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. The inaccuracy of the data can result from both a conscientious delusion and deliberate violations. 
2. Retraction is also used to warn readers about instances of publications duplication (when authors submit the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and interest conflicts concealment that could affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.
3. The main goal of retraction is the correction of the published information and ensuring its integrity, but not the punishment of authors who committed violations.

Reasons and grounds for retracting an article

The grounds for retracting the article are violation of ethical principles of the journal.

The reasons for the retracting of the article include:

• The presence of undue borrowings in a significant amount;
• Duplication of the article in several editions;
• Detection of fabrications or falsifications in the paper (for example, juggling research data);
• Detection of serious mistakes in the paper (for example, results misinterpretation), which casts doubt on the scientific value of the material;
• Incorrect authors composition (There being included the persons who do not meet the criteria of authorship are included or there is no one who is worthy to be considered as an author);
• The conflict of interests (and other violations of the publication ethics) is hidden;
• Re-publication of the article without the consent of the author;
• Other violations of the ethical principles of the journal.

The grounds for the retracting of the article are:

• The author's appeal for the article retracting;
• Decision of the journal’s editor-in-chief.

The procedure for recalling an article

1. The decision for recalling the article is made by the editorial board of the journal on the recommendation of the journal’s editor-in-chief, containing information on the existence of an excuse for recalling the article specified by these rules. The decision to recall the article is made taking into account the author's response to the article, which justifies his/her position on the issue of recalling the article, upon receipt of this response.
2. If the author/teamof authors find it necessary to recall the article, they appeal to the editorial office, explaining the reason for their decision reasonably. The editorial board responds to the authors and, if there are grounds for retraction, it independently retracts the text of the article.
3. If the editorial boarddecides to recall the article text on the basis of its expertise or the information received, the author(s) are informed of this and asked his/her opinion on the submission validity of the editor-in-chief on the article recalling. If the author/team ignores the editorial request, the editorial board has the right to apply to the Council for the Ethics of Scientific Publications and (or) to recall the publication without taking into account the author's opinion.
4. The decision to recall an article is made out in the minutes of the meeting of the journal’s Editorial Board.
5. By deciding to recall the article, the editorial board indicates the reason for the retraction (in case of detection of plagiarism - with reference to sources of borrowing), as well as the date of retraction. The article and the article description remain on the journal’s website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal,  the inscription "RETRACTED" and the date of retraction are applied to the electronic version of the text, the same note is placed in the article and in the table of contents of the issue.
6. The journal’s editor-in-chief sends the minutes of the meeting of the journal’s Editorial Board to the Council for the Ethics of Scientific Publications  and the database of scientific information, which indicates the date of the meeting, the composition of the meeting, the results of the examination, an informed decision and the completed form:

• Author's name and title of the article
• The title of the publication from which the text is recalled
• The initiator of the article's review
• Grounds for recalling the article and the date of the decision
• Link to the page on the website of the publication, on which information is given on the retraction
• The output of the article and the DOI (if any)
• Theme of the article

7. The author (the lead author in the case of collective authorship) is sent the minutes of the meeting of the journal’s Editorial Board with a formulation that justifies the reason for the article's recalling.
8. The journal’s editorial board, along with the decision to recall the article, may decide to impose a ban on the adoption of articles from the author of a retracted article for a certain period of time.
9. The information about the retraction of the article is posted on the journal's website on the Internet.

 

ETHICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS

The ethical policy of “Problems of Pedagogic Education” regarding research involving human participants is based on the international standards of academic integrity and COPE recommendations. The journal considers only those manuscripts that comply with ethical protocols aimed at protecting the rights, safety, and dignity of the research participants.

General Principles

Authors submitting manuscripts based on research involving human participants are required to ensure that such studies comply with the national legislation, ethical standards, and international bioethics conventions. All procedures must be transparent, justified, and must not harm the participants.

Ethical Approval 

All studies involving humans must be pre-approved by the appropriate institutional ethics committee or its equivalent. 

Authors must provide the editorial office with a clear reference to the ethical approval, including the approval number, date, and name of the issuing authority. 

Studies that do not require ethical approval under national legislation must be accompanied by appropriate justification from the authors.

Informed Consent

The authors must confirm that voluntary informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

In cases where participants are unable to provide consent themselves (e.g., minors or  individuals with limited decision-making capacity), consent from their legal representatives is required.

Manuscripts must include a description of the consent procedures.

Confidentiality and Anonymity 

All participants’ personal data were anonymized or presented in a depersonalized form. 

The authors are responsible for complying with legislation regarding personal data protection and confidentiality.

 

Vulnerable groups

Research involving vulnerable groups (minors, elderly people, persons with disabilities, and individuals in difficult life circumstances) must comply with heightened standards of ethical oversight and safety.

Risks and Safety

Authors must describe the potential risks to participants and the measures taken to minimize them. Studies that create unjustified risks are not eligible for publication.

Ethics Violations 

If any breaches of the publication’s ethical standards are identified, actions will be taken in accordance with the COPE recommendations. This may include rejecting the manuscript, publishing a correction, or retracting an already-published article.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The «Problems of Pedagogic Education» journal follow the principles which outline in:

  Common Standard for Conflict of Interest Disclosure published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

  Guidelines published on good publication and the Code of Conduct by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

A conflict of interest is understood to mean anything that interferes or may interfere with the full, proper, and objective procedure for considering and deciding on the publication of research articles or other materials.

A conflict of interest is considered to exist if individuals involved in the editorial process have relationships with each other, personal or otherwise, that could potentially compromise them or interfere with objectivity or influence the resolution of issues related to publication.

When submitting an article, the author must declare all possible conflicts of interest. After manuscripts are assigned for review, reviewers are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may arise.

The author designated by the co-authors as responsible for correspondence with the editors (corresponding author) must declare any conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors.

Conflicts of interest may also arise from employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership in relevant organizations, or other circumstances that may bias the decision-making of those responsible.

Authors should disclose any financial or other material conflict of interest that could influence the results presented or their interpretation, and inform the Editorial Board about this. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/affiliations with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.

Editors should not edit/manage manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, joint or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or companies or institutions associated with the research.

• Conflicts of interest of all authors, reviewers, and editors must be declared and handled transparently.
• The Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, members of the editorial board, and the editorial staff do not influence the review process of their own manuscripts.
• The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in the editorial process when their own manuscript is under consideration. The editorial board appoints an editor to handle manuscripts in which the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author. The Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure.
• The Deputy Editor-in-Chief recuses themselves from the consideration of their own manuscript. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure.
• Members of the editorial board who submit manuscripts withdraw from participation in the editorial process concerning their own texts. The manuscript is handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest and is not affiliated with the author. A manuscript submitted by a member of the editorial board undergoes the standard double-blind peer review procedure. Publication statistics of editorial board members are regularly monitored in order to avoid excessive representation in the journal.
• Editorial staff
  Must adhere to the same principles of independence and conflict-of-interest management as members of the editorial board. Manuscripts submitted by editorial staff undergo the standard double-blind peer review procedure.

Any declarations of conflict of interest made by authors, reviewers or editors are reviewed by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and/or Editor-in-Chief of the publication. In the case of substantiated claims of a conflict of interest with the Editor-in-Chief of the publication, such declarations are reviewed by two members of the editorial board of the publication.

PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

The Journal handles allegations of misconduct with confidentiality, impartiality, and thoroughness, following COPE guidelines::

1. Receipt of Complaint
   • Complaints may be submitted regarding suspected misconduct in submitted or published articles. Complaints should be detailed and evidence-based.
2. Preliminary Assessment
   • The editorial office reviews the complaint to assess its validity and relevance.
3. Investigation
   • The editor contacts the corresponding author(s) to provide an explanation, supporting evidence, and clarification.
   • External experts or institutional authorities may be consulted as needed.
4. Resolution
   • If misconduct is confirmed during review, the manuscript will be rejected.
   • If misconduct is confirmed after publication, appropriate actions may include erratum, clarification, or retraction.
5. Non-Response or Unsatisfactory Explanation
   • If authors do not respond or provide an inadequate explanation, the Journal may proceed with retraction or other corrective measures.
6. Notification and Conclusion
   • Complainants are informed of the outcome, and the case is considered closed once the resolution is implemented.