Ethics of reviewing a scientific article submitted for publication in the journal "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald"

Taking into consideration that the analysis and evaluation of a scientific article submitted by the author (one of the co-authors) for publication in the journal "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald" is carried out confidentially by double-blind peer review when the reviewer does not know who is the author of the article, and the author does not know who is reviewing his article, the reviewer must adhere to the following ethical standards:

• consider work on a scientific article to be confidential;
• make an objective judgment about the peer-reviewed scientific article within the allotted time (do not express in the review critical remarks of a personality);
• explain one's own judgment about the peer-reviewed scientific article and argue so that the author (co-authors) can understand on what grounds such a judgment was made;
• inform about any similarity between the peer-reviewed scientific article and another article that has already been published or is being considered by another publication;
• ensure the confidentiality of any unpublished data, their interpretation or other information from a scientific article and not use the information available in the peer-reviewed unpublished work in their own research;
• to inform the Executive Secretary within the limits of his / her awareness that the considered scientific article contains borrowed materials or falsified data;
• not keep copies of the peer-reviewed scientific article in any form to avoid violating the requirements of copyright law.