Copyright © 2014 Електронне наукове видання «Глобальні та національні проблеми економіки»

Editorial policy

Ethical standards

The editorial board of "Taurida Scientific Herald. Series: Rural Sciences" maintains a certain level of requirements when selecting and accepting articles submitted to the editorial board. These norms are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the standards of quality of scientific works and their presentation, accepted in the scientific community.

Ethics guidelines of the editorial board are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, as well as the principles of DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment).

Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted to the publication without prejudice, evaluating each manuscript properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or to return it for further revision. The author is obliged to revise the article according to the comments of the reviewers or editorial board.

The decision of the editor to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and the correspondence of the journal's profile. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not fit the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Ethical obligations of authors

Authors should ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if the authors have used the work or words of others, then it has been properly framed in quotation marks or quotes.

Submitting an identical article to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed as required.

Unfair or deliberately inaccurate statements in the article constitute unethical conduct and are inadmissible.

The author who corresponds with the editorial board must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication.

The authors of the articles bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board does not bear any responsibility to the authors for the possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editorial board has the right to remove an article if it is found out that in the course of publication the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author of the fact of removal of the article.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

The editorial staff adheres to double-blind review to ensure objectivity in the manuscript evaluation

Since the review of manuscripts is an essential step in the process of publication and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to do some work on the review.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his or her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.

The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has already been published must be accompanied by a reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript unless the author agrees.

 

In accordance with the principles of DORA, the Journal:

• evaluates manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge;

• does not use journal-based metrics (including the Impact Factor) as a criterion for assessing individual articles or the scientific quality of an author;

• does not encourage artificial inflation of citation metrics;

• supports the responsible use of scientometric indicators.

   

The Editorial Board reserves the right to periodically review and update its policies in accordance with developments in international standards, including COPE and DORA.

 

Peer Review Procedure

Type of peer review: The journal uses single-blind peer review, where reviewers are aware of the authors’ names and affiliations, while the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Alternatively, double-blind peer review may be applied at the request of the authors or by the editor’s decision in order to minimize potential bias.

Reviewer selection criteria: Reviewers must hold a Candidate of Sciences (PhD equivalent) or Doctor of Sciences degree in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript;
• the presence of their own publications on the topic within the last 5 years;
• absence of conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal);
• a positive peer-review history (if the reviewer has previously collaborated with the journal).

Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s reviewer database or recommended by the authors (provided that no conflict of interest exists). Reviewers sign a confidentiality and ethical review agreement based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Review timelines: Reviewers are given 14 calendar days from the date of receiving the manuscript to submit their review. After reminders (on the 7th and 10th day), the deadline may be extended up to 21 days for justified reasons. If a reviewer declines or fails to meet the deadline, the editorial office appoints an alternative reviewer.

The initial editorial decision is made within 5 working days after submission. The average time from submission to the first decision after peer review is 30–45 days.

Documentation forms: Each manuscript receives a unique identifier in the editorial system. Reviewers complete a standardized review form, which includes:

• evaluation using a 10-point scale according to the following criteria: originality, scientific significance, methodological correctness, clarity of presentation, and validity of conclusions;
• mandatory sections regarding compliance with ethical standards, the presence of conflicts of interest, and compliance with the AI policy;
• structured comments for authors (recommendations for improvement);
• confidential comments for the editor.

All reviews are stored in the journal archive for at least five years.

Decision-making:
The minimum number of reviews required for a decision is two. The decision is made by the scientific editor (member of the editorial board) based on the reviewers’ reports and their own expertise. The final approval is given by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept – applied in exceptional cases for manuscripts of outstanding quality.
• Minor revisions – the author has 14 days to revise the manuscript.
• Major revisions – the author has 30 days for substantial revision followed by re-review.
• Reject – with explanation of the reasons and the possibility of resubmission after revision.

All decisions are considered final but may be appealed by the authors according to the established procedure.

 

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-Assisted Technologies

Considering the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence technologies, the editorial board of Taurida Scientific Herald. Series: Rural Sciences implements a policy based on the recommendations of the COPE and WAME and the practices of leading scholarly journals.

Acceptable uses of AI

Use of AI tools for language editing, stylistic corrections, reference formatting, grammar and spelling checking.

Use of AI for analysis of large datasets, statistical processing, and visualization of results, provided that the methodology is fully described in the manuscript.

Use of AI tools for plagiarism checking or assistance in responding to reviewers’ comments (under the author’s full supervision).

Unacceptable uses of AI

Listing AI systems as co-authors or authors of a publication.

Using AI to create or manipulate images, figures, graphs, or other visual elements of research.

Generating fabricated data, experimental results, or citations using AI.

Using AI to bypass plagiarism or originality checks.

Using AI-generated content without proper disclosure and critical evaluation by the author.

Disclosure requirements

All authors must clearly indicate in the “Materials and Methods” section (or in “Acknowledgements”, if the article format does not include the first section):

which AI tools or AI-assisted technologies were used;

for which specific tasks (e.g., language editing, data analysis, text generation);

the developer of the AI model and the software version.

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and scientific integrity of all materials presented in the manuscript, including those created or edited with AI tools.

Failure to disclose the use of AI is considered a violation of publication ethics and may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of a published article.

Reviewers and editorial board members are prohibited from uploading manuscripts to AI systems that do not guarantee confidentiality without prior permission from the editorial office.

 

Policy on Ethical Approval of Research

The editorial board adheres to international standards of academic integrity and research ethics. All research involving humans, animals, biological materials, or personal/confidential data must comply with the legislation of Ukraine and internationally accepted ethical standards.

If the research falls under relevant regulations, authors must obtain approval from a competent ethics committee or another authorized body (Ethics Committee / Institutional Review Board).

In the manuscript, authors must:

• provide information about the ethical approval obtained, including the name of the institution, protocol number, and decision date (if available);
• confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and applicable regulations;
• for studies involving human participants: confirm that informed consent was obtained;
• for studies involving animals: confirm that experiments were conducted in accordance with principles of humane treatment of animals.

 

The editorial office reserves the right to request additional documentation confirming compliance with ethical requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be rejected at any stage of the editorial process.

 

Procedure for Handling Complaints Regarding Academic Misconduct and Publication Ethics

The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity. The editorial office considers complaints and appeals from authors, readers, or institutions in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The procedure includes the following stages:

Submission of a complaint
All complaints must be sent to the official email address of the editorial office. The complaint must include a clear description of the alleged violation, supporting evidence, and the complainant’s contact information.

Preliminary assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editorial board member conducts an initial assessment to determine the validity and seriousness of the complaint. Independent experts may be involved if necessary.

Investigation
A temporary commission consisting of at least three editorial board members without conflicts of interest is formed. The investigation is conducted in accordance with principles of confidentiality and impartiality.

Decision-making
Based on the commission’s findings, the editorial office may decide:

• the complaint is unfounded – the complainant receives a reasoned response;
• the violation is confirmed but does not require retraction – a correction is published;
• the violation is serious (fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate publication) – a retraction procedure is initiated;
• in cases related to undisclosed AI use, the journal follows the policy allowing retraction.

Communication
The complainant and the relevant authors are notified of the outcome in writing within 30 working days from the registration of the complaint. All stages of the process are documented and stored in the editorial archive for at least five years.

The editorial office ensures protection of complainants from any form of pressure or discrimination.

 

Retraction Policy

Grounds for retraction

• Significant errors that make the conclusions of the article unreliable.
• Confirmed plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data.
• Duplicate publication (submission of the same article to another journal without proper permission).
• Violation of copyright or other legal norms.
• Failure to disclose a serious conflict of interest affecting the research results.
• Violation of the AI policy leading to breaches of academic integrity.

Initiators of retraction

• Authors (jointly or individually).
• Editorial office based on its own investigation or a complaint from a third party.

Retraction procedure

Notification of intent
The editorial office informs all authors of the reasons for considering retraction and provides 14 days to submit explanations or objections.

Investigation
Conducted by an independent commission.

Decision-making
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the commission’s conclusions. The decision may be appealed by the authors within 30 days.

Publication of a retraction notice
A separate retraction notice is published in the next issue of the journal. It must:

• clearly identify the retracted article (title, authors, DOI);
• indicate the person(s) initiating the retraction;
• describe the reasons for the retraction in detail;
• state whether the authors agree or disagree with the retraction.

Marking the electronic version
The original article remains in the archive, but all pages are marked with a “RETRACTED” watermark with a hyperlink to the retraction notice.

Notification of indexing databases
The editorial office informs all databases indexing the journal about the retraction.

If minor errors are identified that do not affect the reliability of the results, a corrigendum or addendum will be published instead of a retraction.

 

Open Access Policy, Copyright and Licensing

The journal provides immediate open access to its content foolowing the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Full-text access to scientific articles of the journal is presented on the official website in the Archives section.

This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. The licensing policy is compatible with the overwhelming majority of open access and archiving policies.

This is an open access journal, which means all its content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author as long as they cite the source. The journal is licensed by Creative Commons Attribution  International CC-BY.

                                                   

                                                      

Archiving and Long-Term Preservation Policy

The journal ensures reliable and long-term preservation of all published materials in accordance with international digital archiving standards.

To safeguard scientific content:

all journal issues are archived in the V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine;

articles are deposited in the institutional repositories of universities collaborating with the authors.

National Repository of Academic Texts:
The journal transfers all issues to the National Repository of Academic Texts, which ensures long-term preservation within the national open science infrastructure.

 

DSpace Institutional Repository:
All articles are duplicated in the institutional repository of Kherson State Agrarian and Economic University on the DSpace platform.

Technical measures ensuring accessibility:

Use of PDF/A format (archival standard) for all articles.

Assignment of a DOI to each article via CrossRef, ensuring a persistent link regardless of changes in web addresses.

Open Data Policy

The journal encourages authors to deposit all data supporting the results of their research in open repositories (institutional, national, or international), in line with FAIR principles. A DOI or other persistent data identifier should be provided in the article metadata and/or in the Data Availability section.