Publication Ethics

The editorial and publishing ethics of “PALEONTOLOGICAL COLLECTION” is 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 Editors

The editor should consider all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

Is not allowed to publish the information if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

All submitted materials are carefully selected and two-way “blind” reviewed. An editorial board reserves the right to reject a paper or return it for required improvement. The author is obliged to improve the paper according to the remarks of the reviewers or the editorial board.
Rejected papers are not re-reviewed.

The editor and editorial board members should not hand over any information related to the content of the submitted manuscript to other persons, than those who are participating in professional evaluation of this manuscript. After a positive decision regarding the manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.

If there are any conflicts of interest (financial, academic, personal) all participants of review process must inform the editorial board. All disputes are considered at a meeting of the editorial board.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

The authors should ensure that they have written absolutely original papers, and if the authors have used the work or words of others, it was duly executed as links or citations in quotation marks. The editorial board reviews the articles on plagiarism.

Submission of identical paper in more than one journal is considered as unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

A paper must be well structured, contain enough references and be designed according to the requirements.
Unfair or known inaccurate assertions in the paper represent the unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

The author, making correspondence with the editors, has to guarantee that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its publication.
In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s guidelines, authors give to the editor board a comprehensive answer for reviewer.

Authors have opportunity to respond to criticisms of papers.

Authors are wholly responsible for the content of papers and for the fact of their.

The author does not have the right to reproducing the article in other editions without the consent of the editorial staff.

If someone uses material from an article – should make a link to the article by the author.

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

To ensure the objectivity of evaluation of manuscripts the editor board follows the two-way “blind” review.

A reviewer should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations and its exposition. Additionally the reviewer should evaluate how the paper corresponds to the high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown nor discussed with others persons except in special cases, when the reviewer needs someone’s specific consultation.

Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation or reference.

A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.

 

The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts without review if:

  • the author(s) are affiliated with an organization or institution located on the territory of the aggressor state, state sponsor of terrorism;
  • the research is financed by an organization or institution located on the territory of an aggressor state, a state sponsor of terrorism;
  • the manuscripts contain calls for violation of state order or the rule of law, the violation of human rights, terrorism, aimed at spreading ideological positions and/or politicized ideas;
  • the research is based on the conclusions/results obtained by the authors affiliated with the organization or institution located on the territory of the aggressor state, the state sponsor of terrorism (as evidenced by the relevant sources used in the study), without proper justification of their uniqueness and originality and significance in world science, of specific importance for the research proposed for publication;
  • the study pays unreasonably significant attention to the conclusions/results of studies that contain and/or reflect the subjective assessments and/or opinions of the author(s) regarding Ukrainian statehood and/or independence, distort historical events and/or the Ukrainian language or national identity.

 

Policy of Conflict of Interest

The editorial board of Paleontological Collection does not exclude a potential conflict of interests during the publication process.

All persons related to the manuscript, including authors, editors, reviewers, and readers, who comment on or evaluate the relevant paper, must report any conflict of interest.

If, according to the editors, there are circumstances that may affect an unbiased review, the editors will not engage such a reviewer into the peer-review process.

The editors reserve the right not to publish the manuscript if a conflict of interests declared by the author jeopardizes the objectivity and reliability of the research evaluation.

If the editorial office detects a conflict of interest that was not declared when submitting the manuscript, the manuscript may be rejected.

 

The Editorial Board recognizes research integrity as a fundamental basis of scholarly activity and does not tolerate any forms of misconduct that may affect the reliability, objectivity, and transparency of scientific results.

Research misconduct includes, in particular:

Fabrication of data
Inventing data, research results, or experiments and presenting them as real.

Falsification
Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or altering or selectively omitting data with the purpose of distorting research results.

Citation manipulation
Artificially increasing the number of references to specific sources, journals, or authors in order to enhance scientometric indicators; including irrelevant references; or deliberately ignoring significant sources.

Guest/Gift authorship (Artificial authorship)
Including as authors individuals who have not made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research, or excluding those who have made such a contribution.

Other violations
Plagiarism, self-plagiarism without proper disclosure, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, duplicate publication, and deliberate violation of peer review procedures.

 

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.

 

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Scientific Publications

The journal supports innovative technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of scientific publications. At the same time, we emphasize the necessity of adhering to principles of academic integrity, transparency, and responsibility when using AI tools.

Authors are required to clearly indicate in the publication text where and how AI tools have been used (e.g., for text generation, data analysis, preparation of illustrations, etc.). Submissions fully generated by AI without significant author contribution to the scientific content and its interpretation are prohibited. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and quality of the materials, even if part of the work was performed with the help of AI.

The editorial office may use AI tools to assist in plagiarism detection, text preparation, fact-checking, and other aspects of the editorial process. Decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of articles remain solely with the editors and reviewers, regardless of the results obtained through the use of AI.

The use of AI must not violate copyright, confidentiality, or lead to data manipulation. Concealing the fact of AI use or misleading readers about the origin of the text or research results is prohibited.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are responsible for complying with this policy. In case of violations, corrections, rejection of publication, or retraction of articles may be applied in accordance with the editorial policy.

 

Retraction Policy

The Editorial Board follows retraction policy to warn readers about self-plagiarism (authors submit the same data in several journals), academic plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, disguise the conflicts of interests, which would affect the interpretation of data or recommendations for their use. The retraction of the scientific article is the mechanism of correcting published data and alerting readers about articles with serious gaps or invalid content, incl. unreliable one. The publication of such data may be accidental or intentional misconduct.

The retraction’s goal is to inform readers about the article which contains unreliable data.

Based on the Recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), journal staff is guided by the below policy of retraction of previously published articles.

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

  • it contains material or data without authorization for use;
  • the research findings have previously been published;
  • the article has serious errors (e.g., the misinterpretation of research findings) which call into question scientific value;
  • authorship is invalid (the inclusion of persons who do not meet the authorship criteria, or no one is worth being the author);
  • the author(s) failed to disclose a conflict of interests (as well as other violations of publication ethics);
  • the article was republished with the consent of the author(s);
  • there are other violations of ethics.

Grounds for initiating article retraction:

  • the author’s request to retract the article;
  • the request of the third parties (e.g., participants in the conflict of interests) who have evidence of the violations of academic ethics by the author of the article published in the journal;
  • the editorial board has found ethics violations by the article’s author.

Information on article retraction is available on the journal’s web-site.

Retracted articles remain accessible but are clearly marked as “Retracted.”

The decision reasoning article retraction is sent to the author (s).

 

Ethical Requirements for Research Involving Humans, Animals, Biological Materials and Personal Data

The Editorial Board of the journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of research and publication ethics and requires authors to comply with ethical standards when conducting studies submitted for publication.

Research Involving Human Participants

In cases where research involves human participants, authors must ensure compliance with generally accepted ethical standards and principles of bioethics. Such research should be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Authors are required to:

  • obtain voluntary informed consent from participants prior to their involvement in the study;
  • ensure the confidentiality of personal data and the anonymity of participants;
  • indicate in the manuscript that the research was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the relevant institutional ethics committee (where applicable).

In studies involving surveys, consumer studies of food products, testing of light industry products, or evaluation of the impact of technologies on human health, authors must confirm that participation was voluntary and that personal data protection requirements were observed.

Research Involving Animals

If research involves animals, authors must comply with international and national standards for the humane treatment of animals. Such studies should be conducted in accordance with the principles of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes.

Authors must confirm that:

  • all experimental procedures were approved by the appropriate institutional ethics committee;
  • measures were taken to minimize animal suffering;
  • the number of animals used was the minimum necessary to obtain scientifically valid results.

Use of Biological Materials

If biological samples of human or animal origin are used (e.g., tissues, biological materials, or processed biological products), authors must confirm that these materials were obtained and used in accordance with applicable legal and ethical requirements.

Protection of Personal and Confidential Data

When research involves personal or confidential data (for example, in studies of consumer preferences, technological testing of food products, or products of the light industry), authors must ensure appropriate protection and anonymization of information that could identify individuals.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to request documentary evidence confirming compliance with ethical requirements, including approval from an ethics committee, informed consent forms, or other relevant documentation.

Failure to comply with ethical standards may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article.