Ethical guidelines for reviewing a scientific article
submitted to be published in
“Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine”

We apply a double-blind peer review, meaning that the author's name is not made public to the reviewer, and the reviewer's name is also not revealed to the author. Thus, a reviewer is expected to follow a set of ethical guidelines while reviewing an article submitted to be published in “Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine”:

  • a reviewer should maintain strict confidentiality of review;
  • a reviewer should provide an objective, expert opinion refraining from subjective, personalized criticism within the given timeframe;
  • a reviewer should explain and support his/her opinions appropriately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of his/her comments and judgments;
  • a reviewer should inform the editor any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal to the best of his/her knowledge;
  • a reviewer should maintain that all unpublished data, information, interpretation, and discussion in an assigned manuscript remain confidential and should refrain from citing a manuscript or the work it describes before publication, and to not use the data it contains for the advancement of his/her own research;
  • a reviewer should alert the editor if an assigned manuscript contains plagiarized materials or falsified data to the best of his/her knowledge;
  • a reviewer should refrain from keeping any copies of an assigned manuscript to avoid the intellectual property infringement.