DORA and FAIR Principles Compliance Policy

The editorial board 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, https://sfdora.org) and the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which promote openness, reproducibility, and accessibility of scientific materials. The editorial board also supports the principles of open science in accordance with UNESCO recommendations, the Science Europe initiative ('Plan S'), and international research data management standards.

 

Part I. 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.

 

1.1. Rejection of journal metrics as the primary 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.

 

1.2. 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 methods, data, and analytical procedures for an objective assessment of the research.

 

1.3. Support for various forms of scientific output

The journal recognises the importance of not only full-text articles, but also 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.

 

1.4. Transparency of the review process

Editorial decisions must be clearly substantiated. Double-blind peer review is conducted in accordance with the journal's policy and COPE international standards.

 

1.5. Prevention of conflicts of interest

All decisions undergo independent expert evaluation. 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.

 

Part II. Open Data Policy (FAIR)

 

Research data, within the scope of this policy, refers to all materials necessary for the verification, reproduction, and reuse of research results, including numerical data, response texts, code, data collection instruments, protocols, instructions, metadata, and supplementary materials. Research data are an integral part of a publication, ensuring the reproducibility, transparency, and verifiability of results.

The journal adheres to the principles of open science and research data management in accordance with: UNESCO recommendations on open science; the European Commission's Research Data Management policy (FAIR); and international requirements for the Data Availability Statement (DAS).

 

2.1. FAIR Principles

Findable

  • Authors must provide complete metadata to describe their research.
  • Data associated with published results must be deposited in repositories that assign persistent identifiers (DOI).
  • Datasets must include complete bibliographic and descriptive metadata.

 

Accessible

  • Data must be available in an open format or through a clearly described access procedure.
  • Access to data must not be restricted by artificial barriers.
  • Where full disclosure is not possible (due to ethical or legal restrictions), authors must provide a justified explanation.

 

Interoperable

  • Data must be presented in standardised open formats (CSV, TXT, JSON, XML) compatible with international storage and analytics systems.
  • Authors must ensure the use of widely recognised metadata structures and provide a README file or codebook.

 

Reusable

  • Data and materials must be provided with a clear usage licence (CC BY or CC0 recommended for data).
  • Authors must provide a sufficient description of the research context, methods, and tools so that external researchers can reproduce or reuse the data.

 

2.2. Authors' responsibilities

Authors are required to:

  • independently deposit research data in a reliable repository (institutional, national, or international);
  • obtain a persistent identifier (DOI or equivalent);
  • include data information in the article and cite datasets in the reference list;
  • ensure compliance with FAIR principles.

The editorial board does not store data, upload or moderate datasets, or manage repositories on behalf of authors.

 

2.3. Data Availability Statement (DAS)

Every article based on empirical or derived data must include a Data Availability Statement section specifying:

  • availability status (open / partial / on request);
  • name of the repository;
  • DOI of each dataset;
  • licence (CC BY or CC0 recommended for data);
  • access restrictions (if any).

 

Example formulations:

Ukrainian: Дані дослідження доступні в репозитарії Zenodo. DOI: 10.xxxx/zenodo.xxxxxxx. Ліцензія: CC BY 4.0.

English: Data are available in the Zenodo repository. DOI: 10.xxxx/zenodo.xxxxxxx. License: CC BY 4.0.

 

2.4. Recommended repositories

Authors should use reliable platforms that ensure long-term preservation and open metadata, including:

  • Zenodo (zenodo.org)
  • Figshare (figshare.com)
  • Open Science Framework (osf.io)
  • Dryad (datadryad.org)
  • institutional university repositories;
  • national repositories (where available).

 

2.5. Minimum dataset requirements

  • empirical studies — ≥1 dataset;
  • intervention studies — ≥2 datasets (data + instruments/code);
  • methodological articles — ≥1 dataset;
  • reviews — 0–1 dataset (where structured data exist).

1 dataset = 1 DOI (1 repository deposit). Datasets must be cited in the article's reference list (REFERENCES) as separate sources, including authors, year, dataset title, repository, and DOI.

 

2.6. Article metadata

Publication metadata must include: the total number of FAIR datasets, a list of all deposit DOIs, repository names, and access licences.

 

2.7. Data restrictions and ethics

Data may be restricted due to personal data considerations, security risks, or contractual obligations. In such cases, the author explains the reasons in the DAS, provides minimal metadata, and ensures anonymisation or controlled access.

Authors are encouraged to publish anonymised, aggregated, or synthetic datasets that allow verification of the analytical logic without violating ethical or legal requirements. At least 70% of empirical articles should include dataset DOIs.

 

2.8. Quality control

The editorial board ensures procedural oversight but does not manage data directly. Specifically, the editorial board:

  • requires a DAS at the submission stage;
  • verifies the presence and validity of DOIs;
  • assesses FAIR compliance during the review process;
  • may return the article to the authors if requirements are not met.

Reviewers are also involved in assessing the transparency and reproducibility of data.

 

Policy violations

If authors fail to adhere to the DORA and FAIR principles, the editorial board may:

  • request revisions to the submitted materials;
  • reject the manuscript prior to publication;
  • publish appropriate corrections or retract the article in accordance with COPE international guidelines.