Publication ethics

Maintenance of the ethical standards of publications develops the necessary level of public confidence to the “Journal of Lviv National Agrarian University”, high quality of scientific articles and originality of their performance. Editorial boards of the issues of the “Journal of Lviv National Agrarian University” keep to the norms of behavior and international standards, established by the Committee on Publication Ethics)  (http:/


  1. Authors of publications should guarantee originality of their works, no previous publication or stay in review for possible publication in other editions.
  2. Authors of scientific articles should supply relevant results of the performed work, as well as objective argumentation of the research importance.
  3. Using works or statements by other authors, they should be listed in bibliographic references. Plagiarism in all forms is considered as unethical act and is unacceptable.
  4. The people, who have made a considerable contribution to formation of the idea, development, performance and interpretation of the presented research, can be authors of the article. All, who have made such contribution, should be mentioned as co-authors.
  5. Authors should improve the article according to the remarks of reviewers and editorial staff.
  6. Experimental or theoretical research can sometimes give the ground for criticism of the work of another researcher. Nevertheless, personal criticism is not in order under all circumstances.
  7. Authors should inform the responsible editor of the journal issue about any potential conflict of interests, e.g. consulting of financial ones, which can be forced by publication of the results, mentioned in the manuscript. Authors should guarantee absence of contract or ownership relations, which can influence publication of the information, included in the submitted manuscript.


  1. The decision concerning publication of the scientific article is always based on its relevance and scientific importance.
  2. Responsible editor of the issue of the “Journal of LNAU” is in charge for maintenance of the requirements to a publication.
  3. Responsible editor can consult the reviewers about the final decision concerning publication of the scientific article.
  4. Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is the complete responsibility of the editor. Responsible and concerned approach to performance of those obligations expects that the responsible editor consider recommendations of a reviewer, i.e. a scientist with great number of works in the relevant scientific direction, concerning quality and accuracy of the manuscript, submitted for publication. However, manuscripts can be rejected without a review, if the editorial board considers they do not correspond to specialization of the edition.
  5. Unpublished data, obtained from the submitted manuscripts, cannot be used in personal researches without a written consent of the author. Information or an idea, obtained in the process of the article reviewing and connected with possible advantages, should stay confidential and not used for a personal benefit.
  6. After a positive decision of the editorial board, the article is published in the corresponding issue of the Journal of Lviv National Agrarian University and loaded to the corresponding online resources.
  7. Responsible editor should respect intellectual freedom of the authors.
  8. Responsibility and rights of a responsible editor for the issue of the “Journal of Lviv National Agrarian University” concerning any submitted manuscript, authored by the responsible editor, should be delegated to any other qualified person.


  1. A reviewer should make an objective assessment of quality of the manuscript, submitted experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, as well as consider degree of the work correspondence to high scientific and literature standards. The reviewer should respect intellectual independence of the authors.
  2. If the chosen reviewer is not confident that his/her qualification corresponds to the level of the researches, presented in the manuscript, he/she should send the manuscript back.
  3. A reviewer should consider the opportunity of a conflict of interests in case when the manuscript is closely connected with the current or published work of the reviewer. In case of doubts, the reviewer immediately send the manuscript back without a review with determination of a conflict of interests.
  4. A reviewer should not review a manuscript if he/she has personal or professional relations with the author or co-authors of it or in case such relations can influence his/her judgments about the manuscript.
  5. Each manuscript, obtained for a review, should be considered as a confidential document. The submitted work cannot be discussed with other people, who are not authorized. Exceptions are the cases, when the reviewer needs somebody’s specific advice.
  6. Reviewers should supply an adequate explanation and argumentation of his/her judgments in order the reviewers and authors can understand reasons of the remarks. Any statement, noting that some observations, conclusions or arguments have been published before, should be supplemented with the corresponding reference.
  7. Reviewers should provide an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. The reviewer should supply a clear and argued explanation of his/her idea.
  8. A reviewer should supply his/her review with remarks in time.
  9. Unpublished data, obtained from the submitted manuscripts, cannot be used in personal researches without a written consent of the author. Information or ideas, got in the process of reviewing and connected with the possible advantages, should stay confidential and not used for a personal benefit.