The editorial board of the Scientific Professional Journal "Honor and Law" adheres to the principles of academic integrity, editorial ethics, and international standards of publication practice. In its activities, the editorial board is guided by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by:

– DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals);
– COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics);
– OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association);
– WAME (World Association of Medical Editors);
– CSE (Council of Science Editors).

These policies apply to all published content of the journal, including special issues. Editorial decisions are made based on the criteria of scientific value and quality and do not depend on the origin of the manuscript or the characteristics of the authors (nationality, ethnicity, political views, race, religion, etc.).

Ethical Obligations of Authors:

– Authors guarantee that the submitted manuscripts are original research that do not contain plagiarism and have not been previously published;
– Submitting the same work to multiple publications simultaneously is prohibited;
– All persons listed as authors must have made a tangible scientific contribution to the work;
– Authors are obliged to honestly indicate sources and adhere to scientific integrity.

Peer Review and Duties of Reviewers:

The scientific professional journal "Honor and Law" applies a double-blind peer review procedure. The peer review procedure, publication ethics, and editorial policy of the publication comply with the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), CSE (Council of Science Editors), OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association), WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), and DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). This policy ensures the objectivity, impartiality, and quality of publications, and also meets the principles of transparency and ethical publishing practice supported by the international scientific community.Authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities and follow these stages:

1.Initial Review by the Editorial Board
The editorial board checks whether the submitted manuscript meets the formatting requirements, the journal's profile, and basic quality criteria. Manuscripts with signs of plagiarism or gross violations of scientific integrity are not allowed for peer review.

2.Appointment of Reviewers
Each article is sent to at least one independent expert in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected taking into account their scientific specialization and the absence of a conflict of interest. All reviewers act on a voluntary basis and agree to the terms of confidentiality. A reviewer accepts an invitation only if they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and can prepare the review within the established timeframe. A reviewer must not agree to review a manuscript to gain access to it without the intention of providing a review. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline or requires an extension, they immediately inform the editorial board. The reviewer does not receive information about the authors (surname, institution, contacts). Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and all communication is carried out exclusively through the editorial board. The editorial board ensures the technical anonymization of manuscripts and communication. Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the received information and not use the content of the articles for their own purposes. The reviewer does not transfer the manuscript and materials to third parties and does not involve them in the preparation of the review without the prior permission of the editorial board.

3.Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate: scientific novelty, validity, methodology, formatting, and adherence to ethics. The review must be professional, reasoned, and constructive. The reviewer follows the journal's instructions regarding the format of the review, provides specific comments, and, if possible, supports general statements with appropriate references. Offensive statements, personal assessments of the authors, discriminatory judgments, or baseless accusations are unacceptable. The reviewer is obliged to remain impartial regarding the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, and other characteristics of the authors, the origin of the manuscript, as well as commercial considerations. The reviewer does not conduct independent "investigations" and does not make public statements regarding detected signs of ethical violations by the author — further actions are determined by the editorial board. Even after completing the evaluation, the reviewer maintains the confidentiality of the manuscript materials. If new significant information appears after submitting the review that may affect the evaluation, the reviewer informs the editorial board. The standard timeframe for preparing a review is up to 21 calendar days. The review must indicate a clear conclusion: recommended for publication, recommended after revision, or not recommended for publication. The result of the evaluation is the decision of the editorial board, taking into account the conclusions of the reviewers. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the material even with a positive review if it does not meet the profile or standards of the journal.

4.Resubmission
Revised articles can be resubmitted for consideration. In case of significant changes, the manuscript may be sent for peer review again.

Duties of the Editorial Board:

– The decision to accept or reject an article is made based on scientific significance, compliance with the journal's profile, and the quality of the work performed;
– The editorial board guarantees the confidentiality of the peer review process;
– The editorial board makes decisions independently of the founder, financial, or other influences, guided by scientific quality and ethical standards;
– Unpublished materials cannot be used by members of the editorial board without the written consent of the authors.

Plagiarism Policy:

– All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and self-plagiarism using specialized tools;
– If plagiarism, duplication, or other ethical violations are detected, reviewers are obliged to inform the editorial board;
– In case plagiarism is detected, the article is rejected or retracted.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI/LLM):

– The use of artificial intelligence tools (in particular, Gemini / ChatGPT and analogues) is permitted only as an auxiliary tool and does not exempt authors from responsibility for the content of the manuscript; AI/LLM cannot be listed as a co-author;
– Authors are required to declare the use of AI/LLM in the manuscript (in the "acknowledgments/declarations" section or as a separate note), indicating the name of the tool/service, version/model (if any), and exactly how the tool was applied (language editing, summarization, translation, code assistance, etc.);
– Authors guarantee that the use of AI/LLM did not lead to data fabrication/falsification, invented references/citations, or distortion of results;
– Authors must respect confidentiality and third-party rights and not upload materials/data to AI services that are not subject to disclosure (personal data, proprietary information, etc.) if it contradicts legal requirements or institutional policies.

Data, Reproducibility, and Availability of Materials:

– Authors must provide a sufficient description of methods and materials to verify the results during peer review;
– Authors must either provide them in open access (repository/appendices) or submit a "Data Availability Statement" with justification for restrictions (confidentiality, personal data, official restrictions, etc.).