Policy and Ethics

The policy of the MEDIAFORUM journal in publication ethics is based on the recommendations and standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, Great Britain), which has acquired international publicity and significance since 1997. We, editors, publishers and authors, are guided in the process of creation, distribution and use of scientific publications by a system of generally acceptable standards of professional conduct in relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers. Moreover, we proceed from these relationships using the principles of observance of virtue, trust between interested parties and participation in public debates if necessary.

 

 

Guidelines for Article Publication

1.1. Compliance with publishing ethics by the editorial board.

1.2. Adherence to guidelines for rejecting articles, considering the author’s rights.

1.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing.

1.4. Preventing damage to intellectual and moral standards in the presence of commercial interests.

1.5. Readiness to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when required.

1.6. Avoiding publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.

 

Ethical Commitments of the MEDIAFORUM Editorial Board

2.1. Decisions on Publication. The editor of MEDIAFORUM is responsible for the decision on whether articles submitted to the journal should be published. Checking the relevance of the topic and its importance to researchers and readers are considered the main factors influencing the decision to publish articles. In this case, the editor’s decision should be based on the provisions of the law prohibiting copyright infringement and plagiarism and be guided by the policy of the journal’s Editorial Board. The editor-in-chief consults with other members of the Editorial Board on the compliance of certain copyright materials with the requirements.

2.2. Fair Play Principles. The editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board evaluate manuscripts on their intellectual content, regardless of the author’s race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views.

2.3. Confidentiality. The editor-in-chief and all editorial staff have no right to disclose information about submitted works to anyone except the author(s), the reviewer, other editorial consultants, and the publisher, if necessary.

2.4 Disclosure of Information and Conflict of Interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted article must not be used in any research by the editor, reviewers, or any other informed person without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential. The editor-in-chief should declare self-recusal (or assign the associate editor or another member of the Editorial Board) from considering a manuscript in which he/she has a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive relationship, collaboration, or other relationship or connection with one of the authors. The editor-in-chief requires all participants in the process to disclose relevant competing interests and to publish a correction if the conflict of interest is discovered after publication. Other appropriate measures, such as a retraction or apology, should be taken when necessary.

Principles of Professional Ethics in Editor-in-Chief’s Activities

3.1. The editor-in-chief is guided by the following principles in his/her activities:

• to decide on the publication of materials based on the following criteria: compliance of the manuscript with the remit of the journal; relevance, novelty, and scientific significance of the submitted article; clarity of presentation; reliability of the outcomes and relevance of the conclusions. Therefore, the quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the decision on publication;
• to take all possible steps to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information;
• to take into account the recommendations of reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of the article or other submitted materials;
• to justify his/her decision/the decision of the Editorial Board in the event of acceptance or rejection of the article;
• to give the author of the reviewed material the opportunity to justify his/her research position;
• to respect freedom of expression of opinions, which, however, should not contradict humanistic approaches and principles;
• to exclude the influence of business or political interests on decisions on the publication of materials.

3.2. The editor-in-chief does not allow materials to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that they are plagiarism.

3.3. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, must not leave unanswered any claims concerning the manuscripts or published materials reviewed, and, if a conflict situation is identified, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.

3.4. Neither the editor-in-chief nor the Editorial Board is responsible for the opinions, views, and content of manuscripts published in the journal expressed by the authors. Originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of individual authors.

 

Peer review is a mandatory step in making editorial decisions and, if necessary, improving the article through editorial communications with the author.

 

Ethical Principles Guiding the Author (Group of Authors) of the Academic Paper

When submitting materials to the MEDIAFORUM journal, the author (or group of authors), realizing that he/she bears primary and personal responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the scientific research outcomes, adheres to the following:

4.1. The author/authors of the academic paper or any other material must provide reliable results of the research conducted. Obviously erroneous, falsified or compiled materials are unacceptable.

4.2. The author/authors guarantee that the research results presented in the manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be formatted with a mandatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowings, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformatted quotations, paraphrasing or appropriation of rights to the results of other people’s research, are unethical and unacceptable. The borrowings without reference will be considered by the Editorial Board as plagiarism. Fabrication and falsification of data should not be allowed when citing relevant facts.

4.3. The author/authors should avoid duplicating publications (the author must indicate in the cover letter that the work will be published for the first time). If some elements of the manuscript have been previously published, the author must refer to the earlier work, emphasizing the differences between the new work and the previous one.

4.4. The author/authors must not submit the manuscript that has already been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as an article that has already been published in another journal.

4.5. It is necessary to acknowledge the contribution of all persons who, in one way or another, influenced the course of the research, in particular, the article must provide references to works that were important in the study.

4.6. The author/authors must adhere to ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on the research of third parties.

4.7. All persons who made a significant contribution to the study must be listed as co-authors of the article.

4.8. The author/authors must show respect for the work of the Editorial Board and reviewers and correct the indicated deficiencies or substantiate their own author's position.

4.9. The author/authors must submit and format the manuscript in accordance with the requirements set by the journal.

 

Ethical Principles of the Reviewer’s Work

Reviewing is a mandatory step in making editorial decisions and, if necessary, in improving the article using editorial communications with the author. The reviewer makes a scientific examination of the author’s materials, as a result of which his/her steps must be impartial, including the following principles:

5.1. The manuscript received for review has to be considered a confidential document that cannot be passed on for review or discussion to third parties not authorized by the editors.

5.2. The reviewer is premised on the idea that manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and are considered classified information. A breach of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer states that the materials presented in the article are unreliable or false.

5.3. The reviewer draws the Editorial Board’s attention to any significant or partial similarity of the manuscript being evaluated with any other work, as well as the absence of references to individual provisions, conclusions, or reasoning previously published in other works by this or other authors. In addition, the reviewer must indicate the relevant published works not cited in the article.

5.4. The reviewer is obliged to make an objective and impartial assessment of the presented research results and make decisions based on specific facts, arguing his/her own position on the reviewed materials. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

5.5. The reviewer’s comments and suggestions must be objective and essential, aimed at improving the scientific level of the manuscript.

5.6. Reviewers do not have the right to use knowledge of the work content in their own interests before its publication.

5.7. Рецензент, який не володіє, на його думку, достатньою кваліфікацією для оцінки рукопису, або не може бути обʼєктивним, наприклад, в разі конфлікту інтересів з автором або організацією, повинен повідомити про це редакцію з проханням виключити його з процесу рецензування.

5.8. Рішення рецензентів є єдиним інструментом для публікації в журналі та будуть остаточними.

5.7. The reviewer who, in his/her opinion, is not qualified to evaluate the manuscript or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the editors about this with a request to exclude him/her from the review process.

5.8. The decisions of reviewers are the only tool for publication in the journal and will be final.

 

Principles of Professional Ethics in the Publisher’s Activities

The publisher is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which entails the need to follow the fundamental principles and procedures:

6.1. Support the Editorial Board of the journal in considering complaints about the ethical aspects of published materials and help interact with other journals or publishers if this helps to fulfill the duties of editors.

6.2. Ensuring the confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any information until its publication.

6.3. Be always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.

6.4. Providing the Editorial Board of the journal with the opportunity to exclude publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.

6.5. When accepted for publication, the article is placed in the public domain; the copyright remains with the authors.

6.6. Place information about financial support for the study if the author adds such information to the article.

6.7. Agree with the author on the publisher’s proofreading of the article.

6.8. Do not delay the release of the journal.

 

Retraction of the Published Article

If the Editorial Board becomes aware of significant issues with the published article or review (e.g., serious errors or inaccuracies, conflicts of interest, plagiarism) after its publication, it has to promptly notify the author(s) and take the necessary steps to clarify the matter and, if necessary, retract the article.

Retraction is made in the following cases:

• the editors have clear evidence that the data obtained are unreliable or were obtained as a result of illegal actions (e.g., data manipulation);
• the article was previously published in other issues without proper permission or justification (i.e., cases of excessive publication);
• the article is considered plagiarism;
• the article contains information about unethical research practice.

Due to this, the editorial team will take the following steps:

• a notice of retraction titled “Retraction of Article: [Article Title]” signed by the authors and/or the Editor-in-Chief will be published in the next issue of the journal. The note will be included in the table of contents of the journal;
• a link to the original article will be added to the electronic version of the preliminary issue;
• a statement will be made on the article page that the article has been retracted;
• the original article will be saved unchanged, except for a watermark inserted into the .pdf version indicating on each page that the article is retracted.