Alfred Nobel University Journal of Philology  


Editorial board of the journal adheres to the ethics guidelines adopted by the international community as reflected in the recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), is governed by the provisions of Article 42 “Academic Virtue” Law of Ukraine On Education and recommendations of Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine provided in the letter On the provision of academic virtue in higher educational institutions, Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) for editors (Elsevier), and also takes into account the valuable experience of authoritative international journals and publishing houses.

The journal’s Editorial Board has taken measures to ensure high ethical and professional standards based on Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. The journal is committed to ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion in its editorial team and decision-making processes. All submissions are treated in the strictest confidence, and each is judged on its merits without regard to seniority or institutional affiliation. We do not discriminate based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion or creed, mental or physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, military or protected veteran status, citizenship, or any other protected characteristic.

In order to avoid unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, unreliable information, etc.), in order to ensure the high quality of scientific publications, public recognition of scientific results obtained by the author, each member of the editorial board, author, peer reviewer, publisher, and institutions participating in the publishing process are obliged to comply with ethical standards, norms and rules and take measures to prevent their violations. Compliance with the rules of ethics of scientific publications by all participants in this process contributes to ensuring the authors' rights to intellectual property, improving the quality of the publication and excluding the possibility of misuse of copyrighted materials in the interests of individuals.

In the course of its activities publisher is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which entails the need to comply with the following fundamental principles and procedures:

1.1. To promote the fulfillment of ethical duties by the editorial staff, the editorial and publishing group, the editorial board, peer reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements.

1.2. To support the editorial staff of the journal in reviewing claims on the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or publishers, if this facilitates the performance of the duties of editors.

1.3. To ensure the confidentiality of the publication received from the authors and any information before it is published.

1.4. To realize that the activity of the journal is not a commercial project and is not aimed at making profit.

1.5. To be always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, refutations and apologies when it is necessary.

1.6. To provide editorial staff with the possibility of excluding publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.

1.7. The publisher (editor) has the right to reject the manuscript or to require the author to finalize it if the manuscript preparation violates the Rules adopted in this journal and agreed with the Publishing House.

1.8. The article, if accepted for publication, is placed in the public domain; copyright reserved.

1.9. To place information on the financial support of the research, if the author provides such information in the article.

1.10. If there are any content, grammatical, stylistic or other errors, the editorial board shall take all measures to eliminate them.

1.11. To coordinate with the author editorial proofs introduced in the article.

1.12. Not to delay the release of the journal.

Author (or a team of authors) when submitting materials to a scientific journal “Bulletin of Alfred Nobel University. Series: Philology” realizes that he bears primary responsibility for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies observance of the following principles:

2.1. The authors of the article should provide reliable results of the research. Statements known to be forged or falsified are unacceptable.

2.2. The authors must ensure that the results of the research described in the provided manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements shall contain a mandatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowings, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unformulated quotes, paraphrasing or assigning rights to the results of the research of other people are unethical and unacceptable. The existence of a borrowing without reference will be considered as plagiarism by the editorial board.

2.3. Authors are obligated to provide only genuine facts and information in the manuscript; give sufficient information to check and repeat experiments of other researchers; not to use information obtained in private, without open written permission; prevent fabrication and falsification of data.

2.4. Do not allow duplication of publications (in the cover letter, the author must indicate that the work is published for the first time). If individual elements of the manuscript were previously published, the author is obliged to refer to earlier work and indicate the differences of the new work from the previous one.

2.5. Authors are not to provide a journal with a manuscript that has been sent to another journal and is on approval, as well as an article already published in another journal.

2.6. It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research, in particular the article must contain references to the works that were relevant to the study.

2.7. Authors are to comply with ethical standards when criticizing or commenting on third-party research.

2.8. The co-authors of the article are obliged to indicate all persons who have made a significant contribution to the research. It is inadmissible to indicate among co-authors persons who did not participate in the study research.

2.9. Authors are to respect the work of the editorial board and reviewers and follow peer reviewer’s comments or reasonably dismiss them.

2.10. Authors are obliged to present and prepare the manuscript according to the rules adopted in the journal.

2.11. If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must immediately notify the editorial board;

2.12. Authors must provide the editorial board or publisher with proof of the accuracy of the original article or correct significant errors if the editorial board or the publisher has learned about them from third parties.

Peer reviewer provides scientific expertise of copyrighted material therefore his actions are to be impartial

in nature and apply the following principles:

3.1. The manuscript received for review is considered to be a confidential document that cannot be passed on for review or discussion to third parties without authorization from the editorial office.

3.2. Peer reviewers are required to know that the submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and present information that could not be divulged. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in case of a peer reviewer’s statement about unreliability or falsification of the materials stated in the article.

3.3. The peer reviewer is to pay attention of the editor-in-chief to the substantial or partial similarity of the reviewed manuscript to any other work, as well as the facts of absence of references to the provisions, conclusions or arguments previously published in other works of this or other authors.

3.4. The peer reviewer is obliged to note relevant published works that are not cited (in the article).

3.5. The peer reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the results of the research and clearly grounded recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

3.6. The comments of the peer reviewer are to be objective and fundamental, aimed at increasing the scientific level of the manuscript.

3.7. The peer reviewer is to make decisions guided by specific facts and produce testimony to his decision.

3.8. Peer reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts for their own needs.

3.9. Peer reviewers are not allowed to take advantage of knowledge about the content of the work before it is published.

3.10. The peer reviewer who does not possess, in his opinion, sufficient qualification for the evaluation of the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, is to notify the editor with the request to exclude him from the process of reviewing the given manuscript.

3.11. Feedback on the article is confidential. Full name of the peer reviewer is known by the responsible secretary and the editor-in-chief of the journal. This information could not be divulged.


The editor-in-chief is responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which imposes the need to apply the following fundamental principles:

4.1. When deciding on publication, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data presentation and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.

4.2. The editor-in-chief is to evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of authors.

4.3. Unpublished data obtained from the manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas received in the course of editing and related to possible benefits are to be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

4.4. The editor-in-chief is obliged not to allow the publication of information if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.

4.5. In the course of its activities the editor-in-chief shall:

– constantly improve the journal;

– follow the principle of freedom of expression;

– strive to meet the needs of readers and authors of the journal;

– exclude the influence of business interests or a policy of decision-making on publication of materials;
– decide on the publication of materials guided by the following main criteria: correspondence of the manuscript to the subject of the journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the presented article; clarity of presentation of material; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. The quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the decision on its publication;
– take all reasonable measures to ensure the high quality of published materials and protect the privacy of personal information;

– take into account the recommendations of peer reviewers when making a final decision on the publication of the article. The responsibility for the decision on the publication is entirely on the editorial board of the journal;

– justify the decision on the acceptance or rejection of the article;

– provide the author of the peer-reviewed material with the opportunity to substantiate his research position;

– when the membership of the editorial board is changed, the decisions of the previous one on the publication of the material is not cancelled.

4.6. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, shall not leave claims regarding the manuscripts or published materials unanswered, and in the event of a conflict situation, take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights.

4.7. All responsibility for organizing the acceptance of the article, assigning it a unique code, appointing a reviewers, ensuring virtual communication between the reviewer and the author of the article, notifying the author of the publication or rejection of the manuscript lies exclusively with the editorial board. A responsible and impartial approach to the performance of these duties it assumes that the editorial board takes into account the recommendation of the Reviewers – a specialists in the relevant scientific field – regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, articles may be rejected without peer review if the editor-in-chief determines that they do not meet the journal's profile or basic requirements for scientific articles (See The Manuscript Review Process).

4.8. The editorial board has the right to withdraw an article that has already been prepared for publication if it turns out that someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics were violated in the process of writing it. The editorial board informs the author who provided the article, as well as the person who recommends it, and the organization where the research was performed about the fact that the article was withdrawn.

4.9. The responsibility and rights of the editor-in-chief of the Journal in relation to any submitted manuscript, the author of which is the editor-in-chief himself, are delegated to any other qualified person.

5.1. Compliance with the editorial ethics of the editorial board.

5.2. Compliance with guidelines for rejecting articles.

5.3. Maintaining the integrity of academic writing.

5.4. Prevention of damage to intellectual and ethical standards in the presence of commercial interests.

5.5. Readiness to publish corrections, clarifications, rejections and apologies when it is necessary.

5.6. Prevention of the publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.

In order to avoid cases of violation of the publication ethics, it is necessary to exclude the conflict of interest of all parties contributed to the process of publishing the manuscript. Conflict of interest arises if the author, peer reviewer or member of the editorial board has financial, scientific or personal relationships that may affect their actions. Such relationships are called dual obligations, competing interests or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflict of interest and in accordance with accepted ethical guidelines of the journal, each of the parties is charged with the following duties.

The editor is obliged:

– to transfer the manuscript for consideration to another member of the editorial board, provided that the originally designated peer reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the submitted manuscript;

– to request from all participants involved in the process of publishing the manuscript information on the possibility of the emergence of competing interests;

– to make a decision on publication of information indicated in the author's letter concerning a conflict of scientific and / or financial interests, if it is not confidential and may influence the evaluation of published work by the reader or the scientific community;

– to ensure the publication of corrections, if information on a conflict of interest was obtained after the publication of the article.

The author is obliged:

– to indicate the place in his work and the source of research funding.

Peer reviewer is obliged:

– to inform the editor-in-chief about the existence of a conflict of interest (dual obligations, competing interests) and to refuse from the examination of the manuscript.

Research involving humans

All research studies on humans (individuals, samples or data) must have been performed in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to starting the study, ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the local Institutional Ethical Board or other appropriate ethics committee to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines for research on humans. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript, which must provide details of the name of the ethics committee and reference/permit numbers where available.

For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys), where ethical approval is not required (e.g. because of national laws) or where a study has been granted an exemption by an ethics committee, this should be stated within the manuscript with a full explanation.

Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when describing different groups by race, ethnicity, age, disease, disability, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Where the research involves on human, participants (or their guardians if they are not adults or lack capacity to provide informed consent, or next of kin if deceased) must provide informed written consent to be part of the study. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript. Authors must be prepared to provide signed and dated copies to the journal editorial team if requested. In studies where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript. Consent to Publish statements must confirm that the details of any images, videos, recordings, etc can be published, and that the person(s) providing consent have been shown the article contents to be published. Consent to publish is a journal requirement and cannot be exempted by an ethics committee.

Human dignity

All human beings, living and deceased, should be treated with dignity and respect in academic research. Ethical research practices require that researchers are vigilant in ensuring that their work minimizes risk and avoids harm to participants. Special consideration should be given to protecting the dignity and wellbeing of vulnerable participants, including but not limited to children, refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, vulnerable or institutionalized persons, or anyone who may lack capacity to provide informed consent.

Research involving children and adolescents: Written informed consent must be obtained from the parent/guardian of participants who are not legally adults, except in rare cases where children can provide consent on their own (e.g., emancipated minors). Age of legal adulthood is determined by the country where study participants are based, which is typically between ages 16-18. Ideally, researchers should also seek assent from children, where possible. A statement to confirm informed consent has been obtained must be included within the manuscript. In settings where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript. In accordance with the principles outlined in the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, informed consent must have been given with free will, under no coercion or bribery of any kind.

Vulnerable populations: Authors should be familiar with disciplinary, institutional, and national/international guidelines regarding research on vulnerable populations. The Global Association of Human Trafficking Scholars and the Economic and Social Research Council have produced guidance for research involving these groups.

Images: Researchers must ensure that participants fully understand the benefits and risks of being included in photographs and how the photographs will be used, stored, and circulated.

Derogatory and Stigmatizing Language: Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when describing groups by race, ethnicity, age, disease, ability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity category. Where a particular study may necessitate the inclusion of derogatory or offensive language (e.g., direct quotes, transcribed interviews, lyrics, etc.), authors should make clear the scholarly purpose for such terminology.

Content warnings: Authors should consider including content warnings when articles contain particularly graphic or culturally sensitive content.

Authors must be prepared to provide further information and documentation regarding research methods and approvals to the journal editorial office upon request.

Journal editors and the publisher reserve the right to reject articles that do not adhere to the above considerations.

Survey studies

Researchers must ensure they have informed all participants why the research is being conducted, whether or not anonymity is assured, and how the data they are collecting is being stored. The participant’s right to confidentiality should always be considered and they should be fully informed about the aims of the research and if there are any risks associated. Their voluntary consent to participate should be recorded and any legal requirements on data protection should be adhered to. As with all research studies, ethics approval from an appropriate IRB/local ethics committee must be obtained prior to conducting study. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript. In settings where ethics approval for survey studies is not required, authors must include a statement to explain this within the manuscript.

Research on indigenous communities

Authors should be aware of any specific research ethics approval procedures which need to be followed in order to conduct research in communities where restrictions or special processes may exist. Authors should also be aware of cultural sensitivities or restrictions associated with any images included in their manuscripts. In the Aboriginal Australian culture for example, additional approval may need to be sought from a community elder. Authors working with these communities are advised to consult the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Guidelines for ethical publishing. 

Social Media Research

Scholars using data gathered from social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.) should be aware of national laws and ethical guidance on the gathering of and publication of such information. When researchers are interacting with individuals or obtaining private information, they should obtain ethical approval prior to conducting the study. Researchers should also ensure appropriate anonymization and obtain informed consent from anyone who could potentially be identified. Please note that not all data can be collected as fair use or a copyright exception. Authors must check the social media platform’s user policy or terms of service in the region where the research was conducted to determine whether permission is required from the platform. Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the ethics statement and framework from Social Data Science Lab, the ethical guidelines for digital research from the British Sociological Association.


In the event of the violation of the publication ethics on the part of the editor, the author or the peer reviewer, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished material. The editorial board is obliged to demand clarification, without involving persons who may have a conflict of interest with one of the parties.


Editors’ Responsibilities

In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editor, members of the editorial board and international scientific board, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.


The issue will be documented accordingly. All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the article(s) concerned.

Due Process for Authors 

The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting to journal or another publication or author. The author is thus given the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.

Data Access and Retention

Where appropriate, editors encourage authors to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Editors encourage authors to state the availability of their data in a data statement attached to the submitted article. With the data statement, authors can be transparent about the data they used in the article.

Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editor-in-Chief evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.


Editor-in-Chief and International Editorial Board will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editor-in-Chiefand International Editorial Board will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication Decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations 

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Journal editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Appropriate Corrections 

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE Recommendations. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud. COPE states that:

1. Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and unethical research.

2. Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

(1) they have reason to believe that there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but have insufficient evidence,

(2) there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case,

(3) they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair, impartial or conclusive,

(4) or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Retraction and eliminating of publication ethics violations algorithm

Retraction of a published scientific is a method for correcting published information and signaling to readers that a scientific article contains significant errors or inaccurate data that cannot be relied upon. These inaccuracies can arise from both unintentional mistakes and deliberate violations.Retraction is employed to notify readers of potential instances of publication duplication (when an author submits the same data in multiple publications), plagiarism, and conflicts of interest that could impact the interpretatio n or recommendations derived from the data. The primary purpose of retraction is to correct published information and maintain its integrity rather than to punish authors who committed violations.

Reasons and grounds for article recall should be clearly explained.

The article is being recalled as it violates the ethical principles of the Journal.

Editors, reviewers or readers have the right to take reasonable measures when they suspect or they see any violations of publication ethics. If the editorial board or reviewer finds dishonesty in the materials of the article, they should act in accordance with the specifics of the identified violations:

suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript

suspected an ethical problem in a submitted manuscript

suspicion that the proposed surname does not actually correspond to co-authorship, indicates that the co-authorship is fictitious

signs that might indicate authorship problems

If readers find bad faith in their publications, they should proceed with the following algorithms in each cases according to a flowchart:

suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript

suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript

suspected undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

a reader suspects a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data

Retractions should occur after the journal’s editors have carefully considered appeals received from the editors, authors, or readers (for more details on the procedure for handling appeals, see the “Complaints and Appeals”.

The PDF file of the retracted article remains on the website but is clearly watermarked with the note “Retracted” on each page.