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 Man and environment. Issues of neoecology follows the principles of ethical integrity (Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE)), professional editing (WAME) and objective assessment of scientific contribution (DORA), in particular:in particular  Code of Ethics of the scientists of Ukraine

 

Man and Environment Issues of Neoecology 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. Authors (co-authors) guarantee that their manuscript is original, does not infringe intellectual property rights and has not been previously published or submitted to other journals for publication. All articles published in the journal are copyrighted by the article author(s). All articles are licensed under Creative Commons CC BY.

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

Man and Environment Issues of Neoecology 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)

PUBLICATION ETHICS

1. Authorship and Contributorship
   Only individuals who meet all of the following criteria should be listed as authors:
   • Made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; та
   • Drafted the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content; та
   • Approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
   The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all qualifying contributors are included as co-authors, no unqualified individuals are listed, and all co-authors have approved the final manuscript. Individuals who contributed substantially but do not meet these criteria (e.g., technical assistance, writing or editing support) should be acknowledged in the “starred footnote” at the beginning of the article.
2. Handling Complaints, Misconduct, and Appeals
   The Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity. Allegations of research misconduct—including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and citation manipulation—will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.
   • If misconduct is identified during peer review, the manuscript will be rejected.
   • If misconduct is discovered after publication, corrective actions may include publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in severe cases, retraction.
   • Editors and publishers will not knowingly permit or encourage any form of research misconduct. .
3. Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests
   Authors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence or appear to influence the research. Disclosure should be made at submission and included in the manuscript. All sources of financial support, including grant numbers, should also be declared.
4. Data Sharing and Reproducibility
   The Journal encourages transparency and reproducibility. Authors are encouraged to share relevant research data, including raw and processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials, to support verification and replication of findings.
5. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
   Authors are obligated to promptly notify the Journal if significant errors or inaccuracies are discovered in their published work. Corrections will be published in the form of an erratum or, in severe cases, retraction. Editors may also act on concerns raised by third parties, and authors are expected to cooperate fully in providing corrections or evidence supporting the accuracy of their work.

DORA & FAIR Policy

The journal “Man and Environment. Issues of Neoecology” upholds international standards of academic integrity, transparency, and responsible evaluation of scientific results. In its activities, the editorial board is guided by the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which promote openness, reproducibility, and accessibility of scientific materials.

DORA Principles Compliance Policy

The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) establishes standards for a responsible, non-discriminatory, and objective approach to the evaluation of scientific activity.

          1. Rejection of the Use of Journal Metrics as the Main Evaluation Criterion

The editorial board does not use the impact factor or other journal-oriented metrics as indicators of the quality of individual articles. 

Decisions regarding the acceptance of a manuscript for publication are based solely on scientific value, originality, methodological transparency and quality of argumentation.

          2. Priority of Content Over Metrics

Manuscripts are evaluated based on their content, not on the authors' affiliations, prestige of institutions, or level of funding. 

The editorial board encourages detailed descriptions of the methods, data, and analytical procedures for an objective assessment of the research. 

          3. Support for Various Forms of Scientific Results

The journal recognizes the importance of full-text articles, research data, software code, methodological developments, representative materials, negative results, and replication studies. 

All such materials are accepted for publication on equal terms, provided that they meet the editorial requirements. 

          4. Transparency of the Review Process

Editorial decisions must be substantiated. 

A double-blind peer review was conducted in accordance with the publication's policy and COPE international standards. 

           5. Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

All decisions underwent independent expert evaluations. 

Editorial board members do not participate in decision-making regarding their own manuscripts or those of individuals with whom they have financial, familial or professional relationships.

FAIR Principles Compliance Policy

The FAIR principles aim to ensure the accessibility, reusability, and interoperability of scientific data and related materials.

       1. Findability

Authors must provide complete metadata to describe their research.

Data associated with published results should be placed in repositories that assign persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI).

       2. Accessibility

Data should be available in an open format or through a clearly described access procedure.

Access to data should not be restricted by artificial barriers such as paywalls. In cases where full disclosure is not possible (e.g., due to ethical or legal restrictions), the authors are required to provide a justified explanation.

        3. Interoperability

Data should be presented in standardized formats that are compatible with international storage and analytics systems.

Authors must ensure the use of widely recognized metadata structures.

        4. Reusability

Data and materials must be provided with a clear usage license, if applicable.

Authors are required to provide a sufficient description of the research context, methods, and tools so that external researchers can reproduce or reuse the data.

Authors’ Obligations

• All authors must adhere to the principles of DORA and FAIR when submitting materials for publication in this journal.
• The manuscript must include a Data Availability statement.
• The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the submitted data and compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

Obligations of the Editorial Board

 The journal ensures a responsible, objective, and non-discriminatory evaluation of manuscripts. 

• The peer review, decision-making, and publication processes are independent of any commercial or institutional influence. 
• The editorial board provides the technical conditions for the placement and verification of metadata and facilitates the proper implementation of FAIR principles.

Policy Violations

If the authors fail to adhere to the DORA and FAIR principles, the editorial board may request revisions to the materials, reject the manuscript, or publish appropriate corrections in accordance with the international COPE guidelines.

Ethical Research Involving Humans

The ethical policy of “Man and Environment. Issues of Neoecology” 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 “Man and Environment. Issues of Neoecology” 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.

Type of Licensing for the Use of Copyright Objects

Authors submitting publications for this edition agree to the following terms:

• The authors retain the copyright to their publications and grant the journal “Man and environment. Issues of neoecology” for the right of first publication.
• Submission and acceptance of a publication to the journal means that the authors grant the journal a non-exclusive license to publish, distribute, and archive the material in print and electronic form and to include it in international abstracting and bibliographic databases.
• Authors may:
• deposit the published version of their work in institutional or disciplinary repositories,
• distribute it on personal or professional web pages,
• use the material for educational or research purposes,

provided that:

• the publication is not altered,
• it is not used for commercial purposes,
• a complete bibliographic reference for the publication in the journal is provided.

 Authors' Responsibility

• The authors guarantee that the submitted publication is an original work and does not infringe on the copyrights or intellectual property of third parties.
• The authors confirm that this manuscript has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another publisher.
• If the publication uses materials (figures, tables, data, etc.) belonging to third parties, the authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions and for correctly citing the sources.

Publisher's Responsibility

• This publication ensures a transparent and ethical publication process, as well as open access to all materials in accordance with the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license (Creative Commons CC BY).
• The publication guarantees long-term digital preservation of content by archiving it in internal and external repositories.
• Man and environment. Issues of neoecology will insert the following note at the first page of each article: © by the authors, 2024 ;  This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

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: "Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors".

                                                             

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 an reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.

See also: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. 

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT POLICIES

Man and Environment. Issues of Neoecology is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity and adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Journal unequivocally condemns any form of research misconduct and seeks to ensure the originality, reliability, and ethical soundness of all published work. Authors are expected to produce high-quality research while complying with ethical guidelines. Before submission, authors must carefully review the Journal’s Instructions for Authors and Ethical Policies. In pursuit of research integrity, the Journal actively identifies and addresses various forms of research misconduct, including but not limited to:

1. Authorship Misconduct
   • All individuals who have made substantial contributions to a study must be listed as authors and acknowledged in the manuscript. Minor contributions (e.g., technical assistance or editing) should be acknowledged separately.
   • Ghost authorship (excluding qualified contributors) or honorary authorship (including unqualified contributors) is strictly prohibited.
2. Data Fabrication and Falsification
   • Fabricating or manipulating research data, results, or bibliographic references is prohibited.
   • Altering experimental or observational data to produce desired outcomes is not allowed.
3. Citation Manipulation
   • Excessive self-citation or citation of articles from the same journal to artificially inflate metrics is prohibited.
   • “Honorary” or unwarranted citations intended to manipulate impact or reputation are not permitted.
4. Other Forms of Misconduct
• Concealing or suppressing research findings, allowing undue sponsor influence, misrepresenting the significance of results, or obstructing the work of other researchers are unacceptable.
• Establishing or supporting journals without proper quality control (“predatory journals”) is considered a violation of research ethics.

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.

RETRACTION OF PUBLICATIONS

General Provisions 

Man and environment. Issues of neoecology adheres to the recommendations COPE retraction of publications

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 goalof 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 recalling an article

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

The reasons for the recalling of the article include:

• The presence of undue borrowings in a significant amount;
• Duplication of the article in several editions;
• Detection in the paper of fabrications or falsifications (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 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 recalling of the article are:

• The author's appeal for the article recalling;
• 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.