1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1.1. The Editorial Board of the journal bears primary responsibility for monitoring research ethics and ensuring the integrity, reliability, and accuracy of published materials. The journal undertakes to respond promptly to reports of possible violations and to take measures to correct the scholarly record.

1.2. In its practices regarding the correction and retraction of publications, the Editorial Office is guided by the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the «Retraction Guidelines», as well as the recommendations of EASE and WAME.

1.3. The main purpose of article retraction is to minimize harm resulting from the use of unreliable or unethical data, rather than to impose disciplinary sanctions or punish authors. Retraction serves as a mechanism of science’s self-correction and protects readers from misleading conclusions.

1.4. Any actions related to the retraction or correction of articles are carried out publicly. The Editorial Office ensures clear marking of retracted materials so that they cannot be used as a basis for further research, while preserving access to them as part of the historical scholarly record.

1.5. In view of the rapid development of technologies (including artificial intelligence), the Editorial Office reserves the right to amend retraction procedures to ensure their compliance with emerging ethical challenges and updated international protocols.

2. GROUNDS FOR ARTICLE RETRACTION

The Editorial Office initiates the retraction procedure in cases where established facts render the scientific conclusions invalid or constitute a serious breach of publication ethics.

2.1. Unreliable data and scientific errors.

• Detection of significant errors: the presence of conclusive evidence that the research results are unreliable due to a major methodological error, incorrect statistical analysis, or technical flaws that completely invalidate the scientific value of the conclusions.
• Honest error: retraction may be applied if the authors themselves identify, after publication, an error that cannot be corrected by replacing individual fragments (Erratum).

2.2. Violations of academic integrity.

• Falsification and fabrication: deliberate manipulation of primary data, invention of experimental results, survey findings, or archival discoveries.
• Plagiarism: establishment of substantial textual borrowing without proper citation, appropriation of ideas, graphic materials, and results belonging to other authors.
• Redundant (duplicate) publication, self-plagiarism: if the article or a substantial part of it has previously been published in another outlet without appropriate justification, permission, or reference to the original source.

2.3. Unethical use of artificial intelligence (AI).

• Undisclosed generation: detection that key sections of the article (theoretical framework, analysis, conclusions) were generated by AI without proper disclosure.
• Fake references: the presence in the text of non-existent sources or citations generated by AI algorithms (“hallucinations”).

2.4. Violations of authorship and ethical standards.

• Fraudulent authorship (Gift/Ghost/Guest authorship): evidence that the list of authors does not reflect the actual contribution (for example, inclusion of individuals in exchange for remuneration or concealment of the actual developers of the work).
• Compromised peer review: detection of manipulation of the expert review process (for example, provision of fictitious reviewer addresses or arrangements for favorable reviews).
• Undisclosed conflict of interest: detection of significant financial or personal interests that may have affected the objectivity of the research.

2.5. Violation of third-party rights.

• Use of personal data, photographs, or confidential information of respondents without their consent.
• Infringement of copyright in archival documents, images, geographic maps, software code, and other materials used in the research.

3. LEVELS OF CORRECTION OF THE SCHOLARLY RECORD

Depending on the nature of the error and its impact on the research results, the Editorial Office applies one of three levels of response:

3.1. Correction (Erratum / Corrigendum)

• Erratum (Publisher’s error): applied if a significant technical error was made by the Editorial Office during the preparation of the article (for example, omitted or incorrectly placed elements of the text, a missing illustration, or an error in the formatting of article elements).
• Corrigendum (Author’s error): applied in the event of a significant but unintentional error made by the authors (for example, an error in units of measurement, a typo in a formula or reference) that does not affect the main conclusions of the research.
• Procedure: the correction is published as a separate document with its own DOI and a hyperlink to the original article.

3.2. Editorial Expression of Concern

• Purpose: published in cases where the Editorial Office has received serious indications of possible violations, but the investigation requires a prolonged period of time.
• Conditions for application:
  • an investigation into possible misconduct is ongoing, but the evidence is not yet conclusive;
  • the author’s institution refuses to conduct an investigation, or its results appear biased.
• Consequences: upon completion of the investigation, the “Editorial Expression of Concern” is either withdrawn or replaced with a full retraction.

3.3. Retraction (Article retraction)

• Purpose: applied as a radical measure when an article contains errors or violations so serious that its results and conclusions can no longer be trusted.
• Criteria: misconduct (plagiarism, fabrication) or a critical honest error that destroys the logic of the research.

4. ARTICLE RETRACTION PROCEDURE

The Editorial Office follows a clear sequence of actions when considering retraction matters, ensuring the author’s right to respond and the confidentiality of the investigation until a final decision is made.

4.1. Initiation of the procedure.

• The process may be initiated by:
  • The authors of the article: if they independently identify critical errors.
  • The Editor-in-Chief or a member of the Editorial Board: upon detection of violations by the Editorial Office.
  • Third parties: readers, reviewers, scientific institutions (provided that substantiated evidence is submitted in writing).

4.2. Preliminary review and communication with the authors.

• Members of the Editorial Board review the identified case within the scope of their professional competence.
• The Editorial Office informs the authors of the received complaint or identified suspicions.
• The authors are given up to 14 calendar days to provide written explanations, original data, interview records, or file revision histories (especially in cases involving suspected AI use).

4.3. Conduct of the investigation.

• To assess the evidence, the Editorial Office may involve:
  • independent experts (external peer review on a confidential basis);
  • the academic integrity commission of the higher education institution where the author is employed and/or the higher education institution that is the publisher of the journal;
  • specialized software for the detection of plagiarism and generative AI.
• If the authors acknowledge the error/violation or fail to provide convincing rebuttal, the Editorial Office proceeds to decision-making.

4.4. Decision-making.

• The final decision on retraction is made by the Editorial Board under the chairmanship of the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Editorial Office has the right to retract unilaterally, even if the authors disagree, provided there is conclusive evidence of misconduct or unreliable data.

4.5. Appeal.

• The authors have the right to appeal the decision once within 14 days of receiving it.
• An appeal is considered only if new substantial evidence is provided that was not taken into account during the initial review.

5. FORMALIZATION AND TRANSPARENCY OF RETRACTION

In order to preserve the transparency of the scholarly archive and prevent further citation of unreliable data, the Editorial Office adheres to a strict protocol for marking retracted materials.

5.1. Preservation of access and marking.

• A retracted article is not physically removed from the journal’s website or electronic databases, in order to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.
• A visible watermark “RETRACTED / ВІДКЛИКАНО” is applied to every page of the PDF file of the original article.
• The title of the article in the online archive is changed to the format: “Retraction: [Original Article Title]”.

5.2. Retraction Notice.

• The Editorial Office publishes a separate document – the “Retraction Notice”, which has its own DOI identifier and page numbering.
• The notice must contain:
  • a clear indication of who is retracting the article (the Editorial Office, the authors, or both parties);
  • a detailed description of the reasons for retraction;
  • the dates of initiation and adoption of the final decision.

5.3. Updates in international databases.

• Information on the change in the article’s status is promptly transmitted to scientometric databases (e.g., CrossRef, Scopus, Web of Science).
• The Editorial Office ensures linkage between the original article and the notice of its retraction.

5.4. Communication with screening tools.

• The journal undertakes to independently declare on its website the list of AI tools (detectors with AI functions, etc.) used for the internal screening of manuscripts.

5.5. Withdrawal prior to publication (Withdrawal).

• If a request to withdraw a manuscript is submitted by the authors before publication, such material is completely removed from the publisher’s database without publication of a retraction notice.
• A request for such removal must be signed by all co-authors.