• Introduction
• Editorial Responsibilities
• Editorial Independence and Fair Decision-Making
• Confidentiality
• Conflicts of Interest
• Peer review Process
• General provisions
• Peer review procedure
• Reviewer roles and responsibilities
• Authors roles and responsibilities
• Plagiarism and research misconduct
• Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern
• Appeals and Complaints
• Open access policy and copyright
• FAIR Principles Compliance Policy
• Policy on the use of AI and AI-supported technologies
• Archiving and long-term storage policy

Introduction

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. The journal follows the Core Practices and ethical guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):

• transparency in the process of manuscript submission, peer review, and publication;
• impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers;
• academic integrity – prevention of plagiarism, fabrication, and duplicate publication;
• proper authorship – clear identification of each author’s contribution;
• handling complaints – transparent and well-defined procedures for appeals and ethical complaints;
• retractions and corrections – clear procedures for retractions, corrections, and notices of errors.

All parties involved in the publication process — authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher — are expected to adhere to the principles outlined below.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editorial Independence and Fair Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board are responsible for making publication decisions based solely on:

• the scientific merit of the manuscript;
• originality and relevance to the journal’s scope;
• methodological rigor and clarity of presentation;
• compliance with ethical standards.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships.

Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and, when appropriate, other editorial advisers.

Information about a manuscript (including its receipt, content, review reports, and final decision) is treated as confidential.

The names and email addresses provided by users of this journal's website will be used exclusively for internal technical purposes relating to this journal. They will not be distributed or shared with third parties.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships with authors, institutions, or organizations connected to the manuscript.

Peer Review Process

General provisions

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo a peer review process. The purpose of the peer review is to evaluate the quality of the manuscripts submitted by the authors. To this end, the editorial board invites professionals to provide reviews and specific recommendations for improving the manuscripts and determining their suitability for publication in the journal. The peer review process aims to provide an objective evaluation of the scientific article's content, ensuring it aligns with the journal's standards, and offers a thorough analysis of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Only manuscripts that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current theoretical and practical issues and tasks are accepted for publication. Compliance with the guidelines for preparing manuscripts is also taken into account.

Reviewing is conducted according to the principles of double-blind review. This means that the reviewer does not have information about the author(s) of the manuscript, and the author(s) do not have information about the reviewer. Interaction between authors and reviewers occurs through the journal's executive secretary. At the reviewer's request and with the editorial board working group's agreement, interaction between the author and reviewer may occur in an open mode. This decision is made only if openness will improve the presentation of the research material's style and logic.

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Authors entrust the editors with the results of their scientific research and creative efforts, which may be of significant importance to their professional reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential information related to the review process constitutes a violation of the authors’ rights. Editors do not disclose any information concerning a submitted manuscript, including information about its submission, content, peer review process, reviewers' feedback, and the final decision, to anyone other then the authors and the reviewers involved. Confidentiality may be breached only in cases involving allegations of inaccuracy, misconduct, or falsification of materials. In all other circumstances, strict confidentiality must be maintained.

Peer review procedure

1. The author submits a manuscript to the editorial office in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and manuscript preparation guidelines. Manuscripts that fail to comply with the established requirements are not registered or considered for further review, and the authors are duly notified. The responsible secretary registers compliant submissions in the manuscript log, recording the date of receipt, the title of the article, and the full name(s) and institutional affiliation(s) of the author(s). Each manuscript is assigned a unique registration number.
2. The executive secretary conducts a preliminary evaluation of submitted manuscripts to determine whether their content aligns with the journal’s scope and subject area. Following this assessment, the executive secretary assigns the manuscript to reviewers, who may include members of the editorial board, section editors, or external subject-matter experts, and forwards the manuscript for peer review.
3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo review by two or, if necessary, more additional reviewers selected in accordance with the research profile. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal appoints reviewers. Under certain circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may entrust the appointment of reviewers to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at an editorial board meeting. The Editor-in-Chief may exempt individual articles by prominent scientists, as well as articles written by authors specially invited by the editorial board, from the standard review procedure.
4. Reviewers may be members of the journal's editorial board or external, highly qualified professionals with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field. Typically, they are doctors of sciences or professors.
5. After receiving an article for consideration, the reviewer assesses his or her own ability to review the materials based on how well his or her qualifications correspond to the author's research area and whether there is any conflict of interest. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should decline the review and notify the editorial board. In this case, the editorial board appoints another reviewer.
6. Typically, the reviewer makes a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article within 14 days. The review period may vary in each case, depending on the time required for an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials, but it should not exceed one calendar month.
7. The level of uniqueness of all submitted manuscripts may be determined using appropriate software that shows the level of uniqueness, sources, and the proportion of text overlap (StrikePlagiarism).
8. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standard article evaluation form (Review Form) and makes final recommendations on the possibility of publishing the manuscript. The editorial board notifies authors of the results of the review via letter or email.
9. If the reviewer indicates that changes or corrections are needed, the article is sent back to the author. The author can then either take the comments into account when finalizing the manuscript or refute them with arguments. The author included a letter with the revised article that contains responses to all comments and explanations of all changes made to the manuscript. The corrected version is resubmitted to the reviewer, who make a decision and provide a reasoned conclusion on publication. The date the editorial board accepts the manuscript for publication is when it receives a positive review or editorial board decision on the manuscript's publication feasibility.
10. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal's editorial office. The article will then be considered at a meeting of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article to another professional for a new or additional review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unwilling or unable to consider the reviewers' suggestions. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may provide the article to another reviewer, as long as the principles of anonymous review are followed.
11. The Editor-in-Chief (or a member of the editorial board on his behalf) makes the final decision on whether or not to publish, and if necessary, the entire editorial board will convene to make this decision. Once the decision to publish the manuscript has been made, the executive secretary will inform the author and provide an expected publication date.
12. If the decision to publish is positive, then the article is submitted to the journal's editorial portfolio.
13. The Academic Council of the Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the NAS of Ukraine makes the final decision on the content and printing of the forthcoming issue of the journal with a corresponding entry in the minutes of the meeting, which is noted on the second page of the journal cover.
14. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. The technical editor can make minor stylistic or formal corrections to an article without consulting the author, as long as these corrections do not affect the content. The manuscript is sent to the author for final approval in the form of a layout of the article.
15. The author of the article is responsible for any copyright violations or noncompliance with existing standards within the article's content. Both the author and the reviewer are responsible for ensuring the reliability of the facts and data provided, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the article's scientific and practical quality.

Reviewer roles and responsibilities

A reviewer should accept manuscripts for review only if they have the appropriate expertise and decline review if there is a conflict of interest.

The reviewer provides an objective, constructive and timely assessment of the manuscript in the form of a written review. At the end of the review, based on an analysis of how ready the material is for publication, the reviewer gives a conclusion about whether the article can be published.

If the reviewer recommends publishing the article after revisions are made, or if they do not recommend publishing the article, they must explain their decision in the review.

The reviewer must review the submitted article within the agreed-upon timeframe and send a reasoned refusal or a review to the editorial office via email.

The reviewer assesses the theoretical and methodological quality of the article, as well as its scientific and practical value. Additionally, the reviewer establishes whether the article adheres to the ethical principles of scientific publications, offering recommendations for addressing any violations. He identifies relevant published work not cited by the authors, reports suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other misconduct.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they are reviewing are the intellectual property of the authors and must be treated as confidential information.

Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the manuscripts they have been asked to review, nor are they permitted to use any of the information they contain prior to publication.

The review process is conducted in confidence, meaning that information about the manuscript (e.g. time of receipt, content, stages and features of the review, reviewers' comments, and the final publication decision) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is only permitted if there is evidence that the content of the article is unreliable or has been falsified.

Author roles and responsibilities

The author of the reviewed work has the right to familiarise themselves with the review text, especially if the reviewer recommends that the manuscript cannot be published in its current form.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal's editorial office. The manuscript may then be sent for re-review or approval by the editorial board.

Following the review, the author(s) must respond to the reviewer's recommendations and comments and provide a corrected version of the manuscript within two weeks. If the article is submitted later, the date of its publication is changed accordingly.

The responsible secretary will inform the author of the publication date no later than one month after receiving a positive decision on publication of the manuscript.

Plagiarism and research misconduct

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software (StrikePlagiarism).

The journal does not tolerate:

• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism without proper disclosure;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• image manipulation;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• citation manipulation.

Allegations of misconduct are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines. When necessary, the journal may contact authors’ institutions or relevant authorities.

Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern

If significant errors or ethical violations are identified before or after publication, the journal will take appropriate action, including:

• publication of corrections (errata or corrigenda);
• expressions of concern;
• retraction of the article in cases of serious misconduct or invalid results.

Retractions and corrections will be clearly identified and linked to the original article to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting published information and informing readers that a publication contains errors or deficiencies. Grounds for retraction include violations of legal, publishing, or ethical standards.

The editorial board adheres to the principles of academic integrity and accountability to readers and follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines regarding corrections and retractions of publications.

Reasons for retracting an article may include:

• detection of plagiarism in the article;
• duplication of the article in other publications;
• false arguments that invalidate the publication scientific value;
• falsification or fabrication of the data;
• incorrect authorship;
• the absence of the author’s consent;
• publication of the article without a proper peer review procedure.

The editorial board may initiate the retraction of an article if they discover that the author violated publication or scientific ethics in the published article. They may also retract an article upon an official written request from the author(s), the editorial board of another journal, or other individuals involved in a conflict of interest, provided that evidence of the author's violation of scientific ethics is provided.

The procedure for retracting a scientific article is as follows:

Upon receiving a request from the author or another party, the journal's editorial board appoints a commission to verify the information. If the commission decides to retract the article, the minutes must state the reason and date of retraction. Information about retracted articles is sent to the databases and libraries where the journal is indexed or stored.

After the retraction decision is made, the article and its metadata remain on the journal’s website. The electronic version is marked with the note “RETRACTED” along with the retraction date. This status is also indicated in the table of contents of the issue.

The editorial board reserves the right to decide on further cooperation with the author of the retracted article.

Retraction is not a punishment; it is a mechanism designed to maintain academic integrity. Authors have the right to submit an explanation or appeal, which will be considered by the editorial board. When considering such issues, the editorial board is guided by the recommendations of COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics).

Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned written request to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, by members of the Editorial Board not previously involved in the decision. Complaints concerning editorial processes or publication ethics are handled transparently and in accordance with COPE recommendations.

The editorial board of the journal adheres to the principles of academic integrity, objectivity, impartiality and transparency in its publishing activities. All complaints regarding possible violations of academic integrity and publication ethics are considered in accordance with this procedure.

Grounds for filing a complaint

Complaints may be filed if signs of the following are detected:

• plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data;
• violation of copyright;
• failure to comply with the principles of honest authorship (hidden authorship, guest authorship, etc.);
• conflict of interest not declared by authors, reviewers or editors;
• unethical behaviour during the review process;
• other violations of the norms of academic integrity and publication ethics.

Filing a complaint

Complaints should be submitted in writing to the journal's editorial office (by email or through the official communication channels specified on the journal's website) and must contain the following:

• a clear description of the nature of the violation;
• a link to the relevant publication or materials;
• justification of the complaint with evidence (if available);
• contact details of the complainant.

Anonymous complaints will only be considered if there is sufficient evidence.

Initial review of the complaint

The editorial board carries out an initial review of the complaint to:

• establish whether it is within the scope of consideration;
• assess the completeness and validity of the information provided.

If necessary, the editorial board may request additional information or clarifications.

Investigation and expert assessment

If the grounds for considering the complaint are confirmed:

• the editorial board will initiate an internal investigation;
• members of the editorial board, independent experts or reviewers may be involved;
• authors (and/or other interested parties) are given the opportunity to provide written explanations.

The review is carried out in compliance with the principles of confidentiality and impartiality.

Principles of reviewing complaints

When considering complaints and/or appeals, the journal's editorial board adheres to the following principles:

• mutual respect for all participants in the editorial process and the presumption of their proper and conscientious behaviour until proven otherwise;
• providing all interested parties with the right to present arguments in support of or in opposition to the stated claims;
• due notification of participants in the editorial process regarding the receipt and consideration of an appeal that may violate their rights and/or interests;
• resolving any dispute by seeking a compromise and a fair solution.

Decision-making

Based on the results of the consideration, the editorial board adopts a reasoned decision, which may include:

• absence of a violation;
• a requirement for the author to remedy the violations;
• refusal to publish the manuscript;
• retraction of the published article;
• notification of the institution with which the author is associated in the event of significant violations.

Open access policy and copyright

The journal's open-access editorial policy is based on the Budapest Open Access Initiative's (BOAI) recommendations and standards. The journal adheres to the BOAI's definition of Open Access. Open access to peer-reviewed scientific literature means free public access online, allowing users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to, scan for indexing, transfer as data to software, or use the full texts of articles for any lawful purpose without financial, legal, or technical barriers except those associated with personal Internet access. The only restrictions on the reproduction and distribution of materials are those associated with copyright law, which allows authors to control the integrity of their work and ensures proper acknowledgment and citation of their copyright.

The journal aims to promote global open access to scientific information and research. Under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC), the publisher provides readers, scholars, and institutions with free online access to all published materials (e.g., for linking to the content, downloading, distributing, printing, copying, and reproducing in any medium, except modifying the content or using it for commercial purposes). This license is valid provided that the original work is cited. Any use of published materials for commercial purposes requires written permission from the publisher.

The copyright on the article is protected by agreement. Authors sign the Copyright Agreement and provide the publisher with the right to publish, distribute the article, including on the Internet. The authors also authorize the publisher to assign a DOI to their articles and archive them in their respective databases.

In the Agreement, the authors certify that the submitted manuscript is their original work, has not been published before, and is not under consideration by other publishers. The article and any related published materials are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence, which permits the reuse of open-access materials with attribution. The journal's editors are not responsible for any subsequent use of the work.

The journal allows its authors to retain the copyright and publishing rights of articles published in it without restrictions. They are free to share the material (copy and redistribute it in any medium or format) and adapt it (remix, transform and build upon it for any purpose, including commercial use). As long as you follow the licence terms, the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms. Under these terms of use, materials published in the journal may only be used if a reference to the authors of these materials is provided, and if any changes have been made, these must be indicated.

FAIR Principles Compliance Policy