The Editorial Board of the Collection strictly adheres to the principles of academic integrity in accordance with international standards and best global practices, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and ensures the originality of publications.

The policy of academic integrity and publication ethics applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process.

The Collection follows these principles of academic integrity:

• Honesty and transparency of research.
• Reliability of scientific results.
• Proper citation of sources.
• Prevention of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification of data.
• Correct determination of authorship.
• Compliance with ethical norms regarding the use of artificial intelligence.

Authors shall guarantee the originality of their work. They bear full responsibility for it. If authors have used the works and/or data of other researchers, such data must be accompanied by appropriate references to the sources.

When submitting their articles to the Collection, the authors confirm that:

• The text is original and does not violate copyright.
• All sources are properly referenced.
• All data, figures, tables, or illustrations are the authors’ proprietary, or the owners have given their consent for using these materials.
• Neither part of the text has been published earlier, except for preprints, conference summaries, or other relevant cases.

When the authors use information from their own previous papers, they must clearly indicate the fact of reuse and ensure significant scientific novelty. If necessary, the authors must provide the Collection’s Editorial Office with copies of previous works.

The Editorial Board complies with Ukrainian legislation on academic integrity (The Law of Ukraine On Education, Article 42: Academic Integrity). Manuscripts containing violations of academic integrity will not be accepted for publication in the Collection.

According to Clause 4 of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine On Education, violations of academic integrity include academic plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

Plagiarism means any representation of somebody else’s ideas, data, texts, images, or research results as the author’s without proper referencing to the source.

Forms of Academic Plagiarism:

• Text plagiarism: copying fragments of text without references to the source.
• Plagiarism of ideas: appropriation of others’ ideas, hypotheses, or scientific concepts.
• Plagiarism of data: use of others’ research results without proper citation.
• Self-plagiarism: reuse of one’s own previously published materials (text, graphics, data) without proper reference to the earlier publication.
• Mosaic plagiarism: combining copied fragments from different sources without citation, with minor changes in structure or wording.
• Unauthorized co-authorship: listing as a co-author a person who did not participate in the preparation of the manuscript.

Plagiarism is a material violation of ethics, and the Editorial Board has the right to deny article publication or reject it.

For all articles submitted for review, the level of originality of the author’s text is determined using the appropriate software – StrikePlagiarism (https://strikeplagiarism.com) or other software with similar functionality – that analyzes the level of originality of the article, the use of information sources, and partial textual overlap with other works.

Inspection includes:

• Analysis of text matches.
• Checking for the correctness of references in the article.
• Search for matches with the author’s previous papers.
• Analysis of tables, figures, and graphs, if necessary.

The Collection’s Editorial Board does not apply a fixed limitation on similarity, but a comprehensive analysis. It is because even insignificant matches may appear critical, and a high level may be acceptable in methodological sections of a paper when the method description is common to such research activities and when correct referencing is provided.

The following are not allowed:

• Direct or hidden borrowing without referencing.
• Reuse of one’s own publications without indicating the source.
• Translation of another’s text without a reference.
• Incorrect use of ideas, illustrations, or tables.

Peer reviewers must inform the Editorial Board that they have identified signs of plagiarism or excessive copying.

Editors must adhere to COPE recommendations and ensure objective and confidential investigations of plagiarism.

Manuscript confidentiality violations by peer reviewers, e.g., checking using public AI-driven tools, are not allowed.

The Collection’s Editorial Office provides authors with proper substantiations concerning their decision on article denial, including information about plagiarism. However, the Editorial Office is not obliged to provide a detailed analysis or discuss the decision on the article denial in case of a material breach of the academic integrity policy.

If the author does not accept the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, the Editorial Board will examine the conflict situation and make a final decision. If this decision does not satisfy the author, the author has the right to refuse to publish their material.

If a violation is identified, the Editorial Board has the right to:

• Refuse publication.
• Retract the published article in accordance with the Retraction Procedure (the Collection’s Editorial Office adheres to the principles of transparency and does not hide facts of article retraction or correction).
• Notify the author’s institution.
• Limit further cooperation.

When preparing a manuscript, authors should adhere to the following recommendations:

• Always check the text for plagiarism before submission (including their own previously published works).
• Provide references to all sources used, including preprints, dissertations, and conferences, indicating the DOI of the source.
• If reusing any fragments of text, provide proper references and clearly indicate this.
• Do not duplicate results or text without proper transformation and updating.

The Collection’s Editorial Office conducts an objective, confidential analysis of articles and investigates them for plagiarism, adhering to COPE recommendations and registering all decisions of the Editorial Board.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Concerning Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics

Proposals or complaints concerning violations of academic integrity and publication ethics shall be sent to the Editorial Office of the Collection at StMa@yuzhnoye.com.

All complaints concerning manuscripts under review or articles that have already been published are considered in accordance with the publisher’s policy, which complies with the principles and recommendations of COPE.

Investigations of complaints are initiated only when substantiated evidence is provided.

If the complaint contains signs of defamation and is not supported by facts, the Editorial Office sends a request for substantiated evidence before initiating an investigation.

When considering complaints, the Editorial Office of the Collection guarantees the implementation of all procedures to preserve the principles of academic integrity, ensure compliance with ethical standards, and protect copyright.

If the complaint concerns an already published article and its validity is confirmed, the retraction policy is applied to the publication.

The Collection adheres to international standards of academic integrity, transparency, and responsible evaluation of scientific results. In its activities, the Editorial Board is guided by the principles and recommendations of COPE, DORA (https://sfdora.org/about-dora/), and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which promote openness, reproducibility, and accessibility of scientific materials.

Compliance with ethical standards defined by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics):
Transparency in the processes of submission, peer review, and publication of articles.

• Impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers.
• Academic integrity: avoidance of plagiarism, fabrication, and duplicate publication.
• Proper authorship: clear identification of the contribution of each author.
• Handling of complaints: the existence of transparent and well-defined procedures for considering appeals and complaints concerning ethical issues.
• Retraction and correction of articles: a clear procedure for retraction, corrections, and publication of notices of errors.

Compliance with the principles of fair research assessment under DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment):

• Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and significance of the results.
• Journal-level metrics (including impact factor, the h-index of the Collection, or other quantitative indicators) are not used as criteria for evaluating individual articles or authors.
• The Editorial Board and reviewers encourage substantive expert evaluation rather than formal metric-driven assessment.
• Publications recognize the diversity of research outputs, including research data, methods, and negative results.

Compliance with FAIR Principles 

The FAIR principles aim to enhance research transparency, reproducibility of results, and the integration of collections into the international open science ecosystem.

The Editorial Board recommends that authors ensure that research data in their articles comply with FAIR principles:

• Findable: datasets must have unique DOI identifiers, metadata, and descriptions, including:
  • Dataset title.
  • Authors + ORCID.
  • Article title.
  • Year of publication.
• Accessible: data must be available through reliable repositories (open and free access).
• Interoperable: data must be in open, standard formats (CSV, JSON, XML, etc.).
• Reusable: data must include clear usage conditions and licensing (e.g., CC BY 4.0).

The Editorial Board permits and encourages authors to deposit empirical datasets forming the article’s context in open research repositories. Such datasets must:

• Comply with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
• Be stored in a reliable institutional, national, or international repository.
• Have an assigned DOI.
• Be accessible at the time of article publication.

The Collection uses the open international repository Zenodo by OpenAIRE, which securely stores copies of scientific articles and allows:

• Centralized storage of research data.
• DOI assignment to datasets;
• Long-term preservation and access.

Depositing data in a repository with long-term preservation is a mandatory condition for ensuring reproducibility of scientific results.

To simplify the process, the Editorial Board offers authors the option to submit research data together with the manuscript as an archive. In this case, the Editorial Board:

• Uploads materials to Zenodo.
• Generates metadata.
• Assigns a DOI to each dataset.
• Establishes links between the article and data through reciprocal references.

This relieves authors of the technical aspects of data deposition.

Data Availability

All data supporting the research results are included in the text of the scientific article.

Research data must:

• Be structured and comprehensible.
• Be provided in open or widely accepted formats (CSV, TXT, XLSX, JSON, etc.).
• Be accompanied by sufficient metadata for interpretation and reuse.
• Contain no personal or confidential data without proper legal and ethical justification and protection.

Data Licensing

The Collection applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International open license (CC BY 4.0), enabling reuse of data with proper attribution.

Article–Data Linkage

The Editorial Board ensures:

• Indication of the dataset’s DOI in the article (upon the authors’ request).
• Indication of the article’s DOI in the repository record.
• Integration of data into the scientific information space via the OAI-PMH metadata exchange protocol.

Authors’ Responsibility

Authors are responsible for:

• Accuracy and correctness of data deposition.
• Compliance with ethical standards.
• Legality of data dissemination.
• Adherence to FAIR principles.
• Obtaining necessary permissions (if third-party data is involved).

The Editorial Board ensures DOI acquisition and availability for scientific articles published on the Collection’s website (https://journal.yuzhnoye.com), and the correctness of their metadata during publication preparation.

Policy Violations

In case of non-compliance with open data principles, the Editorial Board reserves the right to request revisions, reject the manuscript, or publish corrections in accordance with international COPE recommendations.

The Editorial Board of the Collection strictly adheres to the principles of academic integrity in accordance with international standards and best global practices, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and ensures the originality of publications.

The policy of academic integrity and publication ethics applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants in the publication process.

The Collection follows these principles of academic integrity:

• Honesty and transparency of research.
• Reliability of scientific results.
• Proper citation of sources.
• Prevention of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification of data.
• Correct determination of authorship.
• Compliance with ethical norms regarding the use of artificial intelligence.

Authors shall guarantee the originality of their work. They bear full responsibility for it. If authors have used the works and/or data of other researchers, such data must be accompanied by appropriate references to the sources.

When submitting their articles to the Collection, the authors confirm that:

• The text is original and does not violate copyright.
• All sources are properly referenced.
• All data, figures, tables, or illustrations are the authors’ proprietary, or the owners have given their consent for using these materials.
• Neither part of the text has been published earlier, except for preprints, conference summaries, or other relevant cases.

When the authors use information from their own previous papers, they must clearly indicate the fact of reuse and ensure significant scientific novelty. If necessary, the authors must provide the Collection’s Editorial Office with copies of previous works.

The Editorial Board complies with Ukrainian legislation on academic integrity (The Law of Ukraine On Education, Article 42: Academic Integrity). Manuscripts containing violations of academic integrity will not be accepted for publication in the Collection.

According to Clause 4 of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine On Education, violations of academic integrity include academic plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

Plagiarism means any representation of somebody else’s ideas, data, texts, images, or research results as the author’s without proper referencing to the source.

Forms of Academic Plagiarism:

• Text plagiarism: copying fragments of text without references to the source.
• Plagiarism of ideas: appropriation of others’ ideas, hypotheses, or scientific concepts.
• Plagiarism of data: use of others’ research results without proper citation.
• Self-plagiarism: reuse of one’s own previously published materials (text, graphics, data) without proper reference to the earlier publication.
• Mosaic plagiarism: combining copied fragments from different sources without citation, with minor changes in structure or wording.
• Unauthorized co-authorship: listing as a co-author a person who did not participate in the preparation of the manuscript.

Plagiarism is a material violation of ethics, and the Editorial Board has the right to deny article publication or reject it.

For all articles submitted for review, the level of originality of the author’s text is determined using the appropriate software – StrikePlagiarism (https://strikeplagiarism.com) or other software with similar functionality – that analyzes the level of originality of the article, the use of information sources, and partial textual overlap with other works.

Inspection includes:

• Analysis of text matches.
• Checking for the correctness of references in the article.
• Search for matches with the author’s previous papers.
• Analysis of tables, figures, and graphs, if necessary.

The Collection’s Editorial Board does not apply a fixed limitation on similarity, but a comprehensive analysis. It is because even insignificant matches may appear critical, and a high level may be acceptable in methodological sections of a paper when the method description is common to such research activities and when correct referencing is provided.

The following are not allowed:

• Direct or hidden borrowing without referencing.
• Reuse of one’s own publications without indicating the source.
• Translation of another’s text without a reference.
• Incorrect use of ideas, illustrations, or tables.

Peer reviewers must inform the Editorial Board that they have identified signs of plagiarism or excessive copying.

Editors must adhere to COPE recommendations and ensure objective and confidential investigations of plagiarism.

Manuscript confidentiality violations by peer reviewers, e.g., checking using public AI-driven tools, are not allowed.

The Collection’s Editorial Office provides authors with proper substantiations concerning their decision on article denial, including information about plagiarism. However, the Editorial Office is not obliged to provide a detailed analysis or discuss the decision on the article denial in case of a material breach of the academic integrity policy.

If the author does not accept the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, the Editorial Board will examine the conflict situation and make a final decision. If this decision does not satisfy the author, the author has the right to refuse to publish their material.

If a violation is identified, the Editorial Board has the right to:

• Refuse publication.
• Retract the published article in accordance with the Retraction Procedure (the Collection’s Editorial Office adheres to the principles of transparency and does not hide facts of article retraction or correction).
• Notify the author’s institution.
• Limit further cooperation.

When preparing a manuscript, authors should adhere to the following recommendations:

• Always check the text for plagiarism before submission (including their own previously published works).
• Provide references to all sources used, including preprints, dissertations, and conferences, indicating the DOI of the source.
• If reusing any fragments of text, provide proper references and clearly indicate this.
• Do not duplicate results or text without proper transformation and updating.

The Collection’s Editorial Office conducts an objective, confidential analysis of articles and investigates them for plagiarism, adhering to COPE recommendations and registering all decisions of the Editorial Board.

Procedure for Handling Complaints Concerning Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics

Proposals or complaints concerning violations of academic integrity and publication ethics shall be sent to the Editorial Office of the Collection at StMa@yuzhnoye.com.

All complaints concerning manuscripts under review or articles that have already been published are considered in accordance with the publisher’s policy, which complies with the principles and recommendations of COPE.

Investigations of complaints are initiated only when substantiated evidence is provided.

If the complaint contains signs of defamation and is not supported by facts, the Editorial Office sends a request for substantiated evidence before initiating an investigation.

When considering complaints, the Editorial Office of the Collection guarantees the implementation of all procedures to preserve the principles of academic integrity, ensure compliance with ethical standards, and protect copyright.

If the complaint concerns an already published article and its validity is confirmed, the retraction policy is applied to the publication.

Peer review (expert evaluation) is conducted to ensure a high scientific and technical standard of the Space Technology. Missile Armaments Collection of Scientific Articles.

The purpose of peer review is to obtain an objective expert evaluation of a scientific article concerning its relevance, scientific novelty, practical significance, and compliance with established requirements by a specialist in the relevant field of knowledge.

The Editorial Board organizes independent, impartial, and confidential peer review of all submitted manuscripts in accordance with generally accepted principles of international publication ethics and modern editorial standards. In its activities, the Board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) of Elsevier, and the practices of leading international scientific publishers.

Peer review is conducted under a double-blind model, which ensures mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers. All reviewers shall act objectively and comply with the provisions of the Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy sections of the journal.

Peer review procedure

1. Initial editorial screening. Submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary assessment for compliance with the scope of the Collection, scientific quality, formatting requirements, and principles of academic integrity (including checks for plagiarism and the use of artificial intelligence). The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage without external review. The initial evaluation is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (as an author, co-author, or due to personal or professional relationships with the authors), the evaluation is conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the Editorial Board without a conflict of interest. If the article meets the requirements for publication in the Collection, it is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code and removes all author-identifying information.
2. Appointment of reviewers. Reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board from among independent experts in the relevant field, taking into account their scientific competence and absence of conflicts of interest. External reviewers may include both Ukrainian and international scholars specializing in the same scientific area as the authors. An invitation letter is sent on behalf of the Editorial Office, accompanied by the anonymized manuscript and a review form. Reviewers shall not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and shall have no conflicts of interest.
3. Expert evaluation. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Relevance and significance of the topic.
• Scientific novelty of the results.
• Methodological soundness.
• Reliability and validity of the data obtained.
• Logical structure and quality of presentation.
• Compliance with international standards of scientific writing.

4. Editorial decision based on peer review. Based on the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept for publication.
• Accept after revision.
• Reject.

5. Revision of the manuscript. If revision is required, authors shall submit a revised version of the manuscript within the specified period (up to one month), along with responses to the reviewer’s comments. The Editorial Office may initiate a second round of peer review.
6. Appealing procedure. If the authors disagree with the reviewer’s conclusions, they have the right to submit a reasoned appeal. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on the appeal.
7. Final decision on publication. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication based on the reviewers’ reports and with due consideration of compliance with ethical standards.
8. Confidentiality. Peer review is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality. Manuscripts and reviews shall not be disclosed to third parties without appropriate permission. The Editorial Office retains reviews for a minimum of three years.