The journal DICTUM FACTUM adheres in its editorial policy to the principles of transparency, academic integrity, and responsibility of all participants in the publication process. The editorial policy has been developed based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE’s Core Practices). COPE principles are used by the journal to ensure an appropriate response to cases of possible violations of academic integrity, including issues of plagiarism, conflicts of interest, corrections, and retractions.

Ethical responsibilities of the editorial board of the journal DICTUM FACTUM:

• The editorial board bears ethical responsibility for everything published in the journal; therefore, all submitted materials undergo careful selection and peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it for revision.
• The editorial board must make fair and unbiased decisions, independent of commercial or other interests, and ensure an honest peer-review process within a reasonable timeframe.
• The editorial board may reject a manuscript without peer review if it considers that the work does not comply with the editorial policy, ethical principles, or manuscript requirements.
• Members of the editorial board must not disclose information related to the content of a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those involved in its professional evaluation.

Ethical responsibilities of authors:

• Research published in the journal must be conducted in accordance with applicable legislation and ethical standards. Any potential risks or hazards associated with the research must be clearly indicated.
• Authors must present their results clearly and unambiguously so that the findings can be verified by other researchers, without falsification of data or improper manipulation.
• Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their articles and for their publication. Plagiarism and submission of previously published work as original are unacceptable.
• Sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Authors must guarantee the absence of contractual or proprietary considerations that could influence the publication of the information contained in the manuscript.
• Authors must clearly indicate the sources of all cited or presented information and properly format references in accordance with manuscript requirements.

Ethical responsibilities of reviewers:

• If a selected reviewer is not confident that their qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, they must immediately return the manuscript.
• The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and assess the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
• The reviewer must consider possible conflicts of interest if the manuscript is closely related to their own work. In case of doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, indicating the conflict of interest.
• The reviewer must not share the manuscript under review with others or discuss it with colleagues, except when a specific expert consultation is required.
• Reviewers must provide clear and reasoned explanations of their judgments so that editors and authors understand the basis of their comments.

In addition to COPE principles, the editorial board follows ethical standards defined by WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability), DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), and other modern initiatives. This includes ensuring transparency of editorial processes, unbiased and independent peer review, clear management of conflicts of interest, prevention of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and data falsification, as well as responsible authorship.

WAME (World Association of Medical Editors):
WAME recommendations are applied to ensure high standards in scholarly publishing and may be used more broadly:

• Editorial independence – editorial decisions are made without pressure from sponsors, institutions, or commercial interests.
• Conflicts of interest – all authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose them.
• Peer review – ensuring objective, fair, and timely expert evaluation.
• Transparency of funding – disclosure of grants, sponsors, and research funding sources.
• Support for early-career researchers.
  Link: https://wame.org/

DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment):
The journal supports DORA principles regarding research assessment:

• Support for fair evaluation of research activities.
• Not relying solely on bibliometric indicators (impact factor, h-index), but evaluating research by quality, novelty, and contribution to science.
• Valuing diverse research outputs (software, data, algorithms, technical solutions), not only articles.
• Recognition of interdisciplinary research as equal to traditional publications.
• Encouragement of open science (preprints, open data, and code).
  Link: https://sfdora.org/

Other modern principles (Open Science, Plan S, FAIR Data):

• Open Access – promotion of open access to research results.
• FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) – ensuring discoverability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of data.
• Plan S – support for publishing in open-access journals and repositories.
• Ethical use of AI – ensuring transparency and responsibility in the use of artificial intelligence in research.

FAIR principles:

• Findable – authors must provide complete metadata; data should be stored in repositories with persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI).
• Accessible – data should be available in open formats or through clearly defined access procedures; any restrictions must be justified.
• Interoperable – data should be presented in standardized formats compatible with international systems; recognized metadata structures should be used.
• Reusable – data must include clear usage licenses and sufficient description of context, methods, and tools to allow reuse.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject manuscripts or take other measures in case of ethical violations at any stage of review or after publication. All disputes are considered in accordance with international recommendations, based on principles of fairness and evidence.

The editorial board is not responsible for the opinions, judgments, results, or conclusions expressed by the authors in published articles, as they do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.

The editorial board is not liable to authors or third parties for any potential damage caused by the publication of an article.

Authors bear responsibility for the absence of plagiarism or any improper use of intellectual property, as well as for the accuracy of information, titles, names, and citations.

The editorial board reserves the right to revise these ethical principles to improve them.