The submitted article must meet the following quality criteria:

• Scientific novelty and significance: The article must present original research, new theoretical results, methodologies, practical applications, or contribute to previous studies that substantially expand existing knowledge in a particular field.
• Relevance: The research topic should be relevant to the scientific community.
• Validity: The conclusions must be based on reliable data, a clearly formulated methodology, and logical analysis.
• Compliance with academic standards: Use of clear and precise scientific language, absence of plagiarism, and correct citation of sources are mandatory.
• Relevance to the journal’s scope: The content of the article must correspond to the journal’s subject area and scientific orientation.

The journal accepts the following types of manuscripts:

• Research article: A final report on completed original experimental research. Recommended structure: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Method, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
• Theoretical article: Dedicated to theoretical research of a problem that falls within the journal’s scope. Recommended structure: Abstract, Introduction, Theoretical Framework, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
• Review article: A study of a specific scientific problem relevant to the journal’s scope, based on existing scientific publications. Recommended structure: Abstract, Introduction, Literature Review, Synthesis of Key Findings, Discussion, Conclusion.

3. STRUCTURE AND FORMATTING

Articles in the journal follow the standard IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion).

3.1. Title

The article title is its business card. It must be informative, accurately reflect the research topic and article content, and include keywords, since the title largely determines the article’s visibility, citation rate, and correct indexing in scientometric databases.

The title should be concise and specific, written in an academic style. A colon or parentheses may be used to indicate or clarify the research object.

Key requirements for a scientific article title:

3.1.1. Accuracy and Clarity

• Reflects the content precisely: The title must clearly convey the main topic, aim, and focus of the research. Avoid abstract or overly general formulations. The reader should immediately understand the article’s subject.
• Avoids ambiguity: Do not use words or phrases that may have double meanings or be unclear to a wide academic audience.

3.1.2. Conciseness and Brevity

• Optimal length: Titles are usually short but informative. A recommended length is 10–15 words, depending on the complexity of the topic. Very long titles may be truncated in databases or appear awkward.
• Avoid redundant words: Eliminate filler words, jargon, unexplained abbreviations (unless widely recognized in the field), and empty phrases such as “A study of...”, “An analysis of...”, “The impact of certain aspects...”. Instead, state the essence directly.

3.1.3. Informativeness and Use of Keywords

• Include keywords: The title should contain the main keywords by which readers will search for your article in databases. This significantly improves search optimization (SEO) and visibility.
  • Example: If you are studying “the impact of artificial intelligence on educational program design”, those terms must appear in the title.
• Highlight main variables/objects: Clearly state the primary variables, objects of study, methods, or results, if relevant and useful for informativeness.

3.1.4. Readability for the Audience

• Avoid specialized jargon: Even highly specialized articles should have titles understandable not only to narrow experts but also to researchers from related fields.
• Language: Titles must be written in correct, fluent English without grammatical or stylistic errors.

3.1.5. Additional Aspects and What to Avoid

• Limit special characters: Use symbols, brackets, question marks, or exclamation marks sparingly and only when essential.
• No uncommon abbreviations: Except for widely known ones (e.g., DNA, GDP), avoid abbreviations that require explanation.
• Avoid “serial” titles: Do not use titles such as “Part 1” or “Study II”—they may confuse indexing systems.
• Avoid questions: Titles are usually statements, not questions.
• Do not include full results: While informative, the title should not disclose all findings or conclusions—that is the role of the abstract and conclusion sections.

Examples (good vs. bad titles):

❌ Bad	✅ Good
“Some aspects of plant growth” Too general, not informative, lacks keywords.	“The impact of zinc nanoparticles on sunflower growth and biomass under drought conditions” Specific, identifies the object (zinc, sunflower), effect (growth, biomass), conditions (drought), and includes keywords.
“A study of the effectiveness of a new method” Vague: unclear what method, what effectiveness, in which field.	“Evaluating the effectiveness of machine learning for forecasting electricity demand in large cities” Identifies the method (machine learning), object (electricity demand), and context (large cities).

3.2. Authors and Affiliation

For successful publication, author information must be provided with maximum accuracy and completeness. This is essential for proper author identification in databases, tracking publications and citations, and ensuring compliance with publication ethics.

Main requirements for author information:

3.2.1. Full names of all authors

• First name and last name: Provide the full names of all authors in the “First name Last name” format.
• Consistency: Always use the same spelling of your name in all publications. If duplicate author profiles exist, they can be merged using tools like Scopus Author Profile. Authors with Cyrillic names must transliterate them correctly (e.g., using http://translit.net/ua/).

3.2.2. Academic degree, academic title, position

• When compiling the author list, follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
• Academic titles, degrees, and positions from different systems (especially developing countries) should be translated into internationally recognized English equivalents.

Examples:

• кандидат історичних наук → Ph.D. in History (Doctor of Philosophy in History)
• доктор історичних наук → Doctor of Historical Sciences
• доцент → Associate Professor
• професор → Professor
• магістрант → Master’s student
• аспірант → PhD student
• декан → Dean
• директор → Director
• докторант → Doctoral Candidate
• завідувач кафедри → Head of the Department
• молодший науковий співробітник → Research Assistant
• старший викладач → Senior Lecturer, etc.

3.2.3. Affiliation (place of work/study)

• Full official name: State the full official name of the institution (university, research institute, company, etc.) with which the author is affiliated at submission.
• Subunit (if relevant): Indicate faculty, department, lab, or division to make the affiliation more precise.
• City and country: Always specify the institution’s location.

3.2.4. Contact Information

• Email: Provide a valid email address for each author and the corresponding author.
• Corresponding author: Clearly identify the corresponding author (marked with an asterisk if needed). This person maintains communication with the editorial office and reviewers.

3.2.5. ORCID iD (Open Researcher and Contributor ID)

• ORCID iD is a unique, permanent identifier mandatory for journal submissions.
• Benefits: Ensures all publications are linked to one profile regardless of name or affiliation changes.
• Format: e.g., https://orcid.org/0000-000X-XXXX-XXXX.
• Registration: Free at https://orcid.org/.
• Indicate Scopus ID, Web of Science ResearcherID if available.

3.2.6. Author Contributions Statement

• Many journals now require specifying each author’s role for transparency.
• Examples of roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing.

3.2.7. Declaration of Competing Interests

• Mandatory: All authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., financial ties with companies whose products were studied).
• If none: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

3.2.8. Acknowledgements and Funding

• This section recognizes individuals or organizations who contributed but do not meet authorship criteria and indicates funding sources.

General tips:

• Carefully follow the Instructions for Authors.
• Double-check all author details before submission—errors may complicate indexing.
• Ensure all co-authors approve the final version of the article and consent to publication.

3.3. Abstract

The Abstract is one of the most important elements of a scientific article, as it is often the first (and sometimes only) part read by potential readers or reviewers. Its quality determines whether the article is read in full, as well as its indexing and discoverability.

Recommended abstract structure:

1. Introduction / Background / Purpose
   • Provide brief context, identify the problem, and state the research aim.
   • Example phrases: “This study aims to…”, “The purpose of this research was to investigate…”, “The objective of this paper is to analyze…”.
2. Methods
   • Describe how the research was conducted, including type of study (experimental, descriptive, qualitative, quantitative, review, meta-analysis).
   • Mention objects/participants/materials briefly.
   • State the main methods or tools (without excessive detail).
   • Examples: “Data were collected through surveys and analyzed using regression analysis.”, “A systematic literature review was conducted...”.
3. Results
   • Present the most significant findings.
   • May include essential numeric/statistical outcomes (e.g., “A significant correlation (r = 0.75, p < 0.01) was found...”).
   • Should directly answer the research question.
4. Discussion / Conclusion
   • Summarize meaning and significance of results.
   • Highlight implications for science or practice (“These findings suggest…”, “The results have implications for…”).
   • Mention limitations or future research briefly (if relevant).

General requirements for abstracts:

• Length: 150–200 words (1000–1500 characters).
• Self-contained: Must be understandable without reading the full article.
• No citations, tables, or figures.
• Active voice preferred (“This study investigated…”).
• Keywords: Closely linked to abstract content and central terms.
• Clear, original, concise writing in proper English.

Example abstract format:

“[Introduction/Aim]: This study investigated the impact of [variable X] on [variable Y] in [context Z] to address [problem].
[Methods]: A quantitative design was employed with N participants. Data were collected via [method] and analyzed using [statistical method].
[Results]: Findings revealed a significant relationship between [X] and [Y] (p < 0.05), specifically [key finding 1] and [key finding 2].
[Conclusion/Significance]: Results suggest that [X] plays a crucial role in [Y], with implications for [field A] and [field B].”

Following this structure greatly increases the likelihood of successful publication and indexing.

3.4. Keywords

Provide 5–10 words or phrases that best describe the content of the article and facilitate its indexing. Properly selected keywords ensure that your article will be discovered by the target audience and correctly classified.

The purpose of keywords is to give the reader a clear idea of the subject matter of the article. Each keyword or phrase should accurately reflect the main themes, concepts, methods, and objects of your research. Use words or groups of words, not full sentences. If the object of the study (including country or region) is not mentioned in the article’s title, it must be added to the list of keywords.

Avoid overly general terms that lack sufficient informational value. For example, instead of “economics”, use “digital economy” or “development economics”.

Keywords should be written in lowercase letters (unless they are proper nouns such as “Atalanta” or “Scopus”) and separated by semicolons.

Consider including synonyms or variations of terms if this significantly broadens the search query, while staying within the keyword limit.

Avoid the following:

• Generic words such as “study,” “analysis,” “impact,” “method” – these are too vague and add no value as keywords.
• Full duplication of the title: Do not copy the entire title as keywords. Instead, use core terms from the title and supplement them with other relevant terms.
• Abbreviations without explanation: If an abbreviation is not widely recognized in the field (e.g., DNA, GDP), avoid using it without clarification. If you use it, provide the full form in parentheses.
• Symbols: Avoid special characters or punctuation marks, except those used to separate words/phrases.

3.5. JEL Classification: Requirements and Usage in Academic Articles (Economic Sciences)

The JEL Classification is a system developed by the American Economic Association (AEA) for organizing and categorizing literature in the field of economics. It is widely used by economic journals, databases (including Scopus for economics-related publications), libraries, and researchers to classify articles, books, and other publications by subject matter.

If your academic article belongs to the field of economics or related disciplines, it is highly likely that you will need to provide relevant JEL codes for indexing purposes (as well as to ensure proper assignment to reviewers and readers).

Main requirements for JEL Classification in an article:

1. Relevance to economic sciences
   JEL codes are either mandatory or highly recommended for articles published in economics journals. If your paper is unrelated to economics, JEL codes are not required.
2. Placement
   JEL codes are usually placed after the keywords — this is the most common practice.
3. Selection of codes
   • Number of codes: Typically, between one and three codes are required (sometimes up to five), depending on the journal’s policy.
   • Specificity: Choose the codes that most accurately reflect the primary focus of your study. The JEL system is hierarchical:
     • First level: Broad categories (e.g., A – General Economics and Teaching; B – History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches; C – Mathematical and Quantitative Methods).
     • Second level: More specific subcategories (e.g., C1 – Econometric and Statistical Methods: General; C2 – Econometric Methods: Single Equation Models; Single Variables).
     • Third level: The most detailed subcategories (e.g., C21 – Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions).
   • Principle “from broad to narrow”: It is often recommended to list one broader code (from the first or second level) and one or two more specific codes (from the second or third level).
4. How to find the appropriate JEL codes
   • Official AEA website: The best way is to use the official resource of the American Economic Association: https://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php.
   • Similar articles: Review which JEL codes are used by other researchers working on related topics in leading economic journals.
5. Importance for indexing and discoverability
   • Visibility: Properly chosen JEL codes significantly increase the visibility of your article. Researchers often search for publications by JEL code in databases.
   • Peer review: Journals use JEL codes to assign reviewers who have expertise in the relevant subfield of economics.
   • Systematization: JEL codes help databases correctly index your article and include it in the appropriate subject categories.

Example:

If your paper examines the impact of monetary policy on inflation in Ukraine, you might select the following JEL codes:

• E5 – Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit (monetary policy)
• E31 – Price Level; Inflation; Deflation (inflation)
• P34 – Financial Markets (if your study analyzes Ukrainian financial markets), or R11 – Regional and Urban Economics: General (if a strong regional aspect is included).

3.6. Introduction

The introduction of a research article is crucial, as it sets the tone for the entire study, captures the reader’s attention, and convinces them of the relevance and significance of your work. It should be clear, logical, and persuasive, while adhering to widely accepted academic standards.

The introduction should justify and explain both the research problem and the relevance of the topic, provide a literature review (which may be presented as a separate subsection), define the problem, and state the aim and objectives of the study.

As a rule, the introduction is structured according to the principle “from general to specific,” gradually guiding the reader from a broad issue to your specific research. It can be broken down into several key components:

3.6.1. Relevance and General Research Context

• General problem / Background: Begin with a broad overview of the field of study, outlining the general issue, phenomenon, or trend that forms the subject of your research interest. At this stage, you set the context and demonstrate why the topic is significant in a wider scientific or societal perspective.
• Why is this important? Explain why the problem is relevant today. This may involve a lack of understanding of a phenomenon, an increasing need to address a specific issue, or contradictory results in previous research.

3.6.2. Literature Review and Identification of Research Gaps

• What is currently known? Briefly present the key works and main findings of previous studies related to your topic. This shows your awareness of the ongoing academic discussion.
• Identification of the gap (Research Gap): After reviewing existing knowledge, clearly formulate what is missing in current research. This may include:
  • Unexplored area: A particular aspect of the problem has not yet been studied.
  • Conflicting data: Different studies produce contradictory results.
  • Limitations of previous methods: Existing methodologies fail to fully address the problem.
  • New conditions/context: Research conducted in other contexts may not be applicable to your study.
  • Lack of depth: Previous studies may have addressed the issue only superficially.
  • This is the most critical element of the introduction, as it justifies the necessity of your research.

3.6.3. Aim and Research Objectives

• Research aim (Aim/Objective): Based on the identified gap, clearly formulate the primary aim of your study. What do you seek to achieve with this research? The aim should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART).
• Research objectives (Research Questions/Tasks): Break the main aim into several concrete, measurable objectives or research questions. Objectives represent the steps required to achieve the stated aim. These may take the form of specific questions you intend to answer or hypotheses you intend to test.

3.6.4. Scientific Novelty and Contribution

• Expected contribution / Novelty: Briefly but convincingly explain what new contribution your research makes to the scientific field. How does your work differ from previous studies, and why is it important? This may include:
  • New data or findings.
  • Development of a new methodology.
  • Confirmation or refutation of existing theories.
  • Expansion of knowledge in a particular field.
  • Practical recommendations or applications.

3.6.5. Structure of the Article (not always required, but often used)

• Overview of structure: In the concluding paragraph of the introduction, you may briefly outline how the rest of the article is organized (e.g., “The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology; Section 3 presents the results; Section 4 discusses the findings; and Section 5 concludes with final remarks and recommendations.”). This helps guide the reader.

General Recommendations for Writing the Introduction:

• Conciseness and clarity: Avoid excessive detail that would be more appropriate in the “Literature Review” section. The introduction should remain clear and to the point.
• Logical flow: Ensure smooth and logical transitions between ideas.
• References: Cite relevant literature to support your statements.
• No results or discussion: The introduction should not contain the outcomes of your study or their detailed interpretation — that belongs in later sections.
• Persuasiveness: The introduction should capture the reader’s interest and convincingly demonstrate the value of your research.

Requirements for the Literature Review within the Introduction
In a research article, the literature review included in the introduction is an integral and highly important component. Unlike in a dissertation, it is not a comprehensive stand-alone section but rather serves to contextualize your research and justify its novelty and significance. The literature review should align with the aim of the study and provide the results of a critical analysis of the analytical framework for testing the research hypothesis.

Key requirements and features of the literature review in the introduction:

3.6.5.1. Purpose of the Literature Review in the Introduction

• Context: Provide the reader with a general understanding of the current state of knowledge in your field.
• Relevance: Demonstrate the importance of your topic by showing why it matters in a broader academic context.
• Identification of gaps: The main purpose is to clearly identify and articulate the research gap your study seeks to address. Show that despite existing studies, there remains an aspect, problem, or question that has not been sufficiently explored, or that contradictions exist requiring further investigation.
• Justification of novelty: Prove that your research is original and makes a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

3.6.5.2. Scope and Depth

• Focus: The literature review in the introduction should be targeted and concise. There is no need to summarize everything that has ever been written on your topic. Concentrate only on studies that are directly relevant to your research problem, that help outline the gap, and justify your aim.

Authors may refer to their own publications, but only for the purpose of describing the problem, not for artificially increasing citation counts. It is not acceptable for authors to simply compile long lists of other researchers and their works related to the topic.

Likewise, authors should not copy fragments of text from reviews in other works with references to other authors and then include those works in the reference list.

When citing, the author must strictly adhere to ethical and moral principles.

• 5 to 15 sources: Usually, 5 to 15 key works are sufficient for the introduction. These should be the most relevant and influential in your field. The number may vary depending on the complexity of the topic and the length of the introduction, but quality is more important than quantity.
• Sources from Scopus/Web of Science: Give preference to references from journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, as well as reputable monographs and conference proceedings. This demonstrates the use of high-quality sources. The literature review should not be limited to works published only in the author’s home country — the problem must be studied globally. This is particularly important for authors from non-English-speaking countries, who are strongly advised to carefully review works published in English.

3.6.5.3. Content of the Literature Review

• Key concepts and terms: Briefly define the main concepts, theories, and terms that are central to your research.
• Current state of research: Summarize what is already known about your problem, citing leading scholars and their key findings. Where relevant, legal or regulatory acts may also be analyzed.
• Identification of contradictions or limitations: Highlight any inconsistencies in results, unresolved questions, methodological limitations of previous research, or insufficiently studied aspects. This is where you clearly formulate the research gap.
  • Example of a research gap statement:
    • “While previous studies have explored X, they largely overlooked Y in the context of Z.”
    • “Despite extensive research on A, there remains a critical need to understand B, particularly in developing countries.”
• Justification for topic selection: After identifying the gap, explain why your research is necessary and how it contributes to filling that gap.

3.6.5.4. Style and Formatting

• Integration, not just listing: Do not simply list studies one after another. Instead, integrate their findings into a coherent narrative, grouping them by themes or common results.
• Critical analysis: Demonstrate not only your knowledge of the literature but also your ability to critically analyze it. You may highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of previous studies.
• Use of citations: Cite sources correctly according to the citation style adopted by the journal (e.g., APA, 7th edition).
• Logical transition: Ensure a smooth transition from the literature review to the formulation of the objectives and tasks of your research. The identified gap should logically lead to your study.

Example of logical structure:

1. Broad context of the problem: “Climate change is one of the greatest global challenges of our time, affecting ecosystems and socio-economic systems worldwide [1, 2].”
2. Problem specification: “A particular concern is its impact on agricultural production, where climate instability results in crop losses [3, 4].”
3. What is known from the literature: “Existing studies have examined the effects of temperature [5] and precipitation [6] on maize yields in different regions. Some works have also analyzed farmers’ adaptive strategies [7, 8].”
4. Identification of the gap: “However, despite these important studies, there is a lack of comprehensive analysis of the combined effects of climatic factors (e.g., high temperatures combined with prolonged drought) on crop yields in arid regions of Ukraine. Most previous research has focused on more stable climate zones [9, 10].”
5. Justification and aim of your study: “Therefore, understanding these interactions is crucial for developing effective adaptation strategies. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of simultaneous temperature increases and reduced precipitation on winter wheat yields in Southern Ukraine using climate modeling…”

A high-quality and focused literature review in the introduction demonstrates your expertise in the topic and convincingly justifies the necessity and value of your research for the scientific community.

3.7. Aim

The aim should briefly and specifically (in one sentence) describe the main results whose achievement is the goal of the study. It may also include several intermediate problems, the solution of which ensures the achievement of the aim. The aim should not duplicate the title of the manuscript.

Where is the “Aim” placed?
Most often, the aim of the study is placed:

• At the end of the Introduction: After you have presented the relevance of the problem, reviewed the literature (identifying gaps or points of debate), and formulated the research problem, it is logical to move on to what exactly you intend to investigate to solve this problem.
• As a separate paragraph: Typically, it appears as a separate paragraph or even a single sentence that stands out clearly.

What should be included in the “Aim” section?
The aim is a broad, general statement of what you seek to achieve in your research. It is the “big picture” of your scientific project. It should be:

1. Specific: What exactly will you do? Avoid overly general formulations.
2. Measurable: While not always directly quantitative, it should be clear how the achievement of this aim will be assessed.
3. Achievable: The aim should be realistic within the scope of your study.
4. Relevant: It must relate to the research problem you have just justified.
5. Time-bound (implicitly): The aim refers to a specific study, not an endless process.

Key elements and examples of formulations:

• Typical introductory phrases: Often verbs indicating research activity are used:
  • “The aim of this study is to…”
  • “This article seeks to…”
  • “This research is aimed at…”
  • “The main objective of this paper is to…”
  • “In this article, we strive to…”
• Action verbs reflecting research approaches:
  • Analysis/Exploration: analyze, investigate, examine, evaluate, compare, identify, determine
  • Development/Creation: develop, design, propose, construct
  • Justification/Verification: justify, test, confirm, refute
  • Description: describe, characterize
• What is being studied: Clearly state the research object and the main variable/phenomenon under investigation.
• Context/Limitations: If applicable, specify the particular context, region, time period, or specific research conditions.

Examples of aim formulations:

1. General example:
   “The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new teaching method for [subject] in secondary schools.”
2. Example from technical sciences:
   “This paper seeks to develop and experimentally test a prototype of [device name] to improve the accuracy of [process] under low-temperature conditions.”
3. Example from humanities/social sciences:
   “This research is aimed at analyzing the influence of digital platforms on the formation of public opinion regarding [specific issue] among young people in [specific region/country] during [years].”
4. Example from medical sciences:
   “The main objective of this article is to compare the effectiveness of two different therapeutic approaches (A and B) in treating [disease name] in elderly patients.”

Although journals do not always require a separate “Aim” subsection, a clear formulation of the aim is mandatory.
Remember: a well-formulated aim helps reviewers and readers quickly grasp the main direction and significance of your work.

3.8. Materials and Methods

This section specifies the methods (methodology) of research (well-known ones) used by the author in the study and/or the methodology proposed by the author themselves. They should be described in a detailed, accurate, concise, specific, and transparent manner so that another researcher can replicate your study using the provided information. This is the foundation of scientific integrity. If the proposed methods and procedures are already used in other works, the author must cite the original sources.

In theoretical works, this section should describe the theoretical foundations of the study, including theories, viewpoints, formulas, and equations.

If commonly known statistical procedures are applied, the author should not explain their essence, but only indicate them.

General principles:

• Reproducibility: Other researchers must be able to replicate your study using the description provided.
• Sufficiency of details: Provide enough information for the methods to be understandable.
• Clarity and accuracy: Avoid ambiguity. Use precise terms and units of measurement.
• Logical structure: Organize the information logically, often in chronological order of research stages.
• Justification: If you used non-traditional or modified methods, justify your choice.
• References: Cite standard methodologies or protocols if they exist.

Main subsections and their content

1. Study Design
   • Briefly describe the type of study: experimental, quasi-experimental, observational (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional), qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, review study, modeling, etc.
   • Indicate the overall strategy and logic of your approach.
   • Example: “This study was conducted as a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.” Or: “The study was based on a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis of big data with qualitative focus group discussions.”
2. Subjects/Participants/Materials
   • If humans/animals:
     • Characteristics of participants/subjects: Age, sex, inclusion/exclusion criteria, health status, demographic data.
     • Sampling: How was the sample formed? (random, stratified, convenience, purposive).
     • Ethics: State that the study was approved by an ethics committee ([Committee name, approval number]). Indicate that participants gave informed consent (for humans) or that animal welfare principles were followed.
     • Quantity: Total number of participants/units.
   • If materials/substances/equipment:
     • Exact identification: Chemical compounds (manufacturer, purity), biological samples (species, strain, storage conditions), equipment (model, manufacturer, city, country).
     • Preparation of materials: How samples or materials were prepared before the experiment.
   • Example:
     • “The study involved 50 students (25 males, 25 females) aged 18–22 years, selected using random sampling. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of [University Name], Protocol No. XXX.”
     • “The chemical reagent [Name, manufacturer, purity] purchased from [Supplier] was used in the study.”
3. Data Collection Methods / Experimental Procedures

   This is the “core” of the Methods section. Describe all the steps you performed in a logical, often chronological order.

   • Step-by-step description:
     • What was done?
     • How was it done? (Execution details, sequence of actions).
     • With which tools/equipment? (Settings, calibration).
     • Under what conditions? (Temperature, pressure, time, concentrations).
     • How many times was it repeated?
     • How were the data recorded?
   • Instruments/Equipment/Software used: List all devices, questionnaires, scales, and software (with versions) used. Specify the manufacturer, city, and country.
   • References to protocols: If standard, previously published methods were used, cite the relevant publications. If you modified a method, describe the modifications.
   • Control groups/conditions: Explain how control groups or experimental conditions were created.
   • Example: “Measurements were carried out using a spectrophotometer [Model, Manufacturer, City, Country] at a wavelength of 520 nm. Samples were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. Data analysis was performed with SPSS Statistics software, version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).”
4. Data Analysis / Statistical Analysis

   Describe how the collected data were processed and analyzed.

   • Software: List all statistical software used (with versions and manufacturers).
   • Statistical tests: Specify the statistical tests applied (e.g., Student’s t-test, ANOVA, chi-square test, correlation analysis, regression analysis).
   • Significance level: Indicate the accepted level of statistical significance (e.g., p < 0.05).
   • Data processing: Describe any preprocessing steps (e.g., normalization, filtering, outlier removal).
   • Quantitative vs. Qualitative analysis: For qualitative research, describe methods of coding, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, etc.
   • Example: “Statistical analysis of the data was performed using R software, version 4.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the means of independent groups after testing for normality with the Shapiro–Wilk test. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.”

Important Notes:

• Ethics: For studies involving humans or animals, ethical approval and informed consent must be mentioned. This is a critical requirement.
• References to protocols: If well-known standardized protocols were used (e.g., ELISA, PCR, ISO standards), cite them rather than rewriting the entire protocol. If modifications were made, describe them in detail.
• Avoid results: The Methods section should only describe how the research was conducted, not what was found. Results belong in a separate section.
• Past tense: Since the study has already been conducted, methods must be described in the past tense.
• Clear and structured paragraphs/subsections: Use subheadings for better structure and readability.

A well-written Methods section not only facilitates indexing in databases but also increases trust in your scientific findings.

3.9. Results

The Results section is one of the most important parts of a scientific article because it presents the empirical or theoretical data obtained during the study.

Interpretation of the obtained results should not be performed in this section. Results previously obtained by the authors or other researchers should also not be presented here.

It is important to present results clearly, concisely, and objectively, following academic standards.

What to include and how to structure it effectively:

1. Clear and concise presentation of data
   • Focus on main findings: Present only those results that directly relate to the study objectives and answer the research questions. Avoid presenting raw data or excessive procedural detail already described in the Materials and Methods section.
   • Use of visualizations: Actively use tables, graphs, charts, figures, and other visuals to present complex data in an understandable format. Each visualization should have a clear title and caption and be referenced in the text.
   • Textual description of visualizations: Do not just insert graphics; describe their key aspects in the text. Highlight main trends, patterns, differences, or relationships they show.
2. Objectivity and accuracy
   • Facts only: The Results section should be purely descriptive. Avoid interpretation, discussion, or generalization—those belong in the Discussion section. Present the data obtained factually without adding your own assumptions.
   • Statistical significance: If statistical methods were used, be sure to report the level of statistical significance (p-values), confidence intervals, and other relevant statistical metrics.
   • Units of measurement: Always state units of measurement for all numerical data.
3. Logical structure
   • Chronological or thematic order: Organize results in a logical sequence. This may be chronological (the order experiments were performed) or thematic (grouping results by research questions or hypotheses).
   • Use of subsections: For better readability and structure—especially if you have many results—use subsections with clear headings.
   • Consistency: Ensure that the presentation of results follows the order in which objectives or hypotheses were stated in the Introduction.
4. Key elements to include
   • Description of the sample/participants: If appropriate, briefly remind the reader of the main characteristics of the sample or participants (e.g., number, age, sex) when these affect the results.
   • Primary quantitative data: Numbers, percentages, means, standard deviations, etc.
   • Qualitative findings (if applicable): If your study includes qualitative data (e.g., interview or focus-group results), describe the main themes or categories that emerged.
   • Negative/unexpected results: Do not be afraid to present results that do not support your hypotheses or were unexpected. They are equally important to the scientific community and can form the basis for future research.

Example structure of a “Results” subsection

Results

1. 3.1. Sample characteristics
   • Main demographic data or characteristics of the studied objects.
2. 3.2. Effect of factor X on outcome Y
   • Description of key results presented in Table 1 and Figure 1.
   • Indication of statistical significance.
3. 3.3. Comparison of groups A and B
   • Presentation of comparative analysis results (e.g., t-test, ANOVA).
   • Highlight key differences or similarities illustrated in Figure 2.
4. 3.4. Correlation analysis between variables Z and W
   • Description of observed correlations and their strength.
   • Reference to Table 2 with correlation coefficients.

Important tips:

• Check journal requirements: Each journal has specific formatting and content requirements for sections.
• Use scientific style: Write clearly and objectively; avoid colloquial expressions and emotional language.
• Be consistent: Use consistent terminology and data presentation formats throughout the section.
• Proofread carefully: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Make sure all references to tables and figures are correct.

By following these recommendations, you will be able to create a strong and informative Results section that meets the high standards of indexed journals and helps effectively communicate your scientific findings.

3.10. Discussion

The Discussion section is perhaps the most challenging but also the most important part of a scientific article. This is where you interpret your results, relate them to existing knowledge, explain their significance, and outline future directions. For journal publication, critical analysis, in-depth interpretation, and clear positioning of your study within the broader scientific context are essential.

Below are key elements and recommendations for writing an effective Discussion:

1. Restating main findings and their interpretation
   • Brief reminder of key results: Begin by briefly but clearly reminding the reader of the most important, novel, and significant findings of your study. Do not repeat all Results in detail; focus on the main conclusions.
   • Interpretation of results: This is the core of the section. Explain what your results mean.
     • Answers to research questions / hypotheses: Do your results confirm your hypotheses? Do they answer the research questions posed? If not, why?
     • Causes and mechanisms: Propose possible explanations for the observed results. What mechanisms might underlie the observed phenomena?
     • Unexpected results: If there are unexpected or anomalous findings, do not ignore them. Discuss them, attempt to explain them, and indicate whether they suggest directions for future research.
2. Comparison with existing literature
   • Relation to previous studies: This point is critically important for journals. Compare your findings with those of other researchers.
     • Confirmation: If your results corroborate previous studies, state this and cite the relevant sources.
     • Contradictions: If your results contradict existing data, discuss possible reasons for the discrepancies (e.g., methodological differences, sample characteristics, contextual factors).
     • Extension of knowledge: Explain how your results extend or deepen understanding of existing concepts or theories.
     • Novelty: Clearly identify what is new and unique that your study contributes to the published literature.
3. Significance and implications of the study (Implications)
   • Theoretical implications: How does your research affect existing theories or models? Does it propose new theoretical frameworks or modify existing ones?
   • Practical implications / Recommendations: What practical significance do your findings have? How can they be applied in the real world (e.g., clinical practice, policy development, technological innovation, educational programs)? Be specific.
   • Social, economic, environmental significance: Depending on your field, consider the broader societal, economic, or environmental implications of your work.
4. Limitations of the study
   • Acknowledgement of weaknesses: No study is perfect. Objectively state the limitations of your work (e.g., sample size, methodological constraints, geographic limits, potential confounders). This demonstrates scientific integrity.
   • Impact of limitations: Explain how these limitations may have affected the results and their interpretation.
   • Ways to address them: Where possible, suggest how these limitations could be accounted for or overcome in future research.
5. Future research
   • Directions for further work: Based on your findings and limitations, outline directions for future studies. What new questions arise? What further investigations are needed to deepen understanding?
6. Conclusion of the Discussion section
   • Brief summary: End the section with a short but strong summary of the main findings and their most important implications. This summary is part of the Discussion (not a separate Conclusions section).

Typical structure of a Discussion section (example)

Discussion

1. 4.1. Main findings and their interpretation
   • Restatement of key results.
   • Explanation of their meaning.
   • Answers to research questions/hypotheses.
2. 4.2. Relation to existing literature
   • Comparison with previous studies (similarities/differences).
   • Justification of novelty and contribution.
3. 4.3. Theoretical and practical implications
   • Impact on existing theories.
   • Practical recommendations and applications.
4. 4.4. Limitations of the study
   • Objective presentation of weaknesses.
   • Possible impact on results.
5. 4.5. Directions for future research
   • Suggestions for subsequent steps.
6. 4.6. Conclusion of the Discussion
   • Short summary of main findings and their significance.

Important tips:

• Clarity and logical flow: Arguments should be coherent and logically developed; each paragraph should flow from the previous one.
• Citations: Actively and correctly cite relevant sources to support your arguments and demonstrate familiarity with the literature—this is critical for journals.
• Avoid repetition: Do not repeat verbatim material from the Introduction or Results. Paraphrase and interpret.
• Stay focused: Keep the focus on your results. Avoid discussing irrelevant issues.
• Scientific style: Use formal, objective language; avoid subjective statements and emotional phrasing.
• Careful proofreading: Check for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Writing a strong Discussion is key to successful journal publication, as it demonstrates your ability for critical thinking, synthesis, and integration of your findings into the wider scientific context.

3.11. Conclusion

The Conclusion section of a scientific article is not merely a repetition of the main results but the logical completion of your research. Here, you summarize the most important findings, highlight the contribution of the article to science, and make a final statement about its significance. This section should be clear, concise, and persuasive.

Below are the key elements to include in the Conclusion and recommendations for writing it:

1. Concise summary of the main results
   • Avoid repetition: Do not duplicate tables, numbers, or full descriptions from the Results section. Instead, briefly remind the reader of the key, most important conclusions derived from your data.
   • Answers to research questions/hypotheses: Clearly state whether the objectives of the study were achieved and whether your hypotheses were confirmed (or refuted). If some questions remain unanswered, they should be addressed in the Discussion rather than here.
2. Contribution of the study and its significance
   • Novelty and originality: Emphasize what your research adds to existing knowledge in your field. This may be a new methodology, new data, new theoretical foundations, or practical applications.
   • Theoretical and practical significance: Briefly summarize the implications of your results for theory and practice.
     • Theoretical: How does your study deepen understanding of a specific problem or phenomenon? Does it challenge or support existing theories?
     • Practical: What real-world applications might your results have? Could they influence policy, technology, clinical practice, education, etc.?
3. Limitations and further research (optional, brief)
   • Short reminder of limitations: While detailed discussion belongs in the Discussion section, you may briefly note the key limitations that affect the generalizability of your findings. However, do not overemphasize them.
   • Future directions: If appropriate, you may briefly indicate directions for future research emerging from your conclusions. However, do not turn this section into a “Future Work” discussion—it should remain focused on the summary.
4. Clarity and conciseness
   • Brevity: The Conclusion is usually the shortest section of the article. It should be clear, precise, and free of unnecessary words.
   • No new information: Do not introduce any information here that was not presented in earlier sections.
   • No citations: Normally, the Conclusion does not contain references, as it serves as a synthesis of your own findings.

Typical structure of the Conclusion section

Conclusion
In this study, we [briefly restate the research aim]. The results demonstrated that [main conclusion 1, addressing the key research question]. Specifically, [short confirmation supported by key data or observed trends].
These findings confirm/refute/expand [mention the existing theory or previous research]. Thus, our study makes a significant contribution to [name the field of knowledge] by [specify the contribution: e.g., providing first evidence, developing a new model, identifying previously unknown relationships].
The practical significance of the results lies in [specific practical application/recommendation]. Despite [brief mention of the main limitation], these conclusions represent an important step toward [further understanding/development].

Key recommendations:

• The “gold standard”: The Conclusion should be written so that a reader who only reads the Abstract and Conclusion can still understand the essence and main achievements of your study.
• Confidence and objectivity: Formulate your conclusions confidently but objectively, grounded in the data presented.
• Answer the “so what?” question: Reflect on why your research is important and what the reader should take away from it.

A well-written Conclusion leaves the reader with a strong and positive impression of your research, emphasizing its value and significance for the scientific community.

3.12. Author Contributions

When submitting a manuscript, the corresponding author must specify the role of each author. Please familiarize yourself with authorship and co-authorship principles (individual author roles according to the CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy). Authors share joint responsibility for the role allocation and must confirm the assigned contributions and acknowledgments in the cover letter. Individual author contributions will be indicated in the Author Contributions section of the article.

Explanations and key aspects:

• CRediT Taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): The contribution categories used in the table are based on the CRediT taxonomy, which is a widely accepted standard in scholarly publishing.
• Checkmarks (✓): Place a checkmark next to each author who contributed to the corresponding category.
• Guest/Gift Authorship: Avoid including individuals who did not make a significant intellectual contribution to the research. This practice is unethical and may result in article retraction.
• Author Order: The sequence of authors usually reflects the degree of their contribution, with the first author typically being the primary researcher or the one who drafted most of the manuscript, and the last author often being the supervisor or project leader. In some disciplines (e.g., mathematics, physics), however, authors may be listed alphabetically. Always verify the requirements of the target journal.
• Shared Contribution: If several authors contributed equally or significantly, this can be indicated in the cover letter. Some journals allow specifying co-first authors or co-last authors.
• Transparency: The purpose of this table is to ensure transparency regarding each author’s role, thereby supporting integrity in scholarly publishing.

Example: Author Contribution Distribution Table for a Scientific Article (Scopus)

Contribution Category (CRediT Taxonomy)	Description of Contribution	Author 1 (Full Name / Initials)	Author 2 (Full Name / Initials)	Author 3 (Full Name / Initials)
Conceptualization	Formulating ideas; defining the goals and objectives of the research.	✓
Methodology	Developing or adapting research methods; experimental design.	✓	✓
Validation	Verifying, analyzing, and checking the results; critical evaluation.		✓	✓
Formal Analysis	Applying statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze study data.	✓		✓
Investigation (Data Collection)	Conducting research; gathering and accumulating factual data.		✓	✓
Resources	Providing software, computing resources, reagents, materials, patients/samples.	✓
Data Curation	Managing research data (annotation, cleaning, preparing for publication).		✓
Visualization	Preparing, creating, and/or presenting the published work, including graphs, tables, diagrams.			✓
Writing – Original Draft	Preparing and writing the initial draft of the article.	✓
Writing – Review & Editing	Critically reviewing, commenting on, and revising the manuscript.	✓	✓	✓
Supervision	Guidance and leadership in planning and execution of research activities.	✓
Project Administration	Management and coordination responsibility for the planning and execution of the research activity.	✓
Funding Acquisition	Securing financial support for the project leading to this publication.	✓

Final notes:

Before submission, always review the Instructions for Authors of your target Scopus-indexed journal, as specific requirements for the format or wording of the Author Contributions section may vary.

3.13. Acknowledgements

This section should list individuals or institutions that contributed to the preparation of the article but are not its authors (such as relevant research programs, grants, scholarships, contracts, or persons/organizations that assisted the author in conducting the research—for example, providing access to information, organizing surveys, interviews, etc.). All individuals mentioned must consent to being acknowledged. In addition, the editor may request that the corresponding author provide written confirmation from all acknowledged persons granting permission to be mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

3.14. References

A complete list of all cited sources, formatted according to the journal’s requirements. All in-text citations must appear in the reference list, and all references listed must be cited in the text. Priority should be given to sources published in journals indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.

The reference list should be arranged in alphabetical order. If citing a source in its original language (not English), first provide the citation in the original language, followed by a transliteration in parentheses. Transliteration is recommended according to English-language systems (preferably the British Standards Institution system). For transliteration from Ukrainian, you may use the official Ukrainian transliteration rules and the tool available at: http://translit.net/ua/. Examples of Ukrainian sources (if not published in English) should be transliterated.

When citing a work originally published in a non-English language, please cite the original version. According to the APA style, non-Latin alphabets are not used in the reference list; therefore, the title must be transliterated into the Latin alphabet, followed by an English translation in square brackets.

Citation Style

1. APA (American Psychological Association)
   • In-text citation: (Author, Year)
     Example: (Smith, 2023)
   • Reference list: Alphabetical order by authors’ last names.
     Example (journal article):
     Smith, J. R., & Johnson, L. K. (2023). The impact of digital learning on student engagement. Journal of Educational Technology, 15(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.xxxx/xxxx
     Example (book):
     Brown, A. B. (2022). Advanced research methods. University Press.

Formatting Recommendations

• Use reference managers: It is strongly recommended to use reference management software such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote. These tools significantly simplify the formatting process, automatically structure references according to the chosen style, and allow for easy style changes if needed.
• Attention to detail: Even minor errors in formatting can create an impression of carelessness. Check every reference carefully.
• Source citation: Always cite original sources, not “secondary citations.” If you have not read the original work, do not reference it.

Properly formatted references demonstrate your academic integrity, respect for the work of other researchers, and professionalism.

3.15. Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials include large figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, photographs, and similar materials referenced throughout the article.

4. ARTICLE SUBMISSION RULES

The length of an article may range from 4,000 to 6,000 words (for short communications – from 1,000 to 2,000 words). For the purpose of calculating word count, author details, title, abstract and keywords, references, and appendices are not included. The number of references is determined by the author, but on average amounts to 30–50 sources. In review articles, this number can be significantly higher.

Supplementary materials should not exceed 5 pages.

Please note that the article must be submitted in Microsoft Word or a compatible format (.DOC, .DOCX).

It is strictly prohibited to use tables, figures, diagrams, or photographs by other authors without their written permission.

The formatting of the article’s text must comply with the Manuscript Submission Guidelines.

4.1. Publishing Process

Key aspects of page layout to be carefully considered:

1. File format and software
   • Standard formats: The journal requires articles to be submitted in .doc or .docx (Microsoft Word). PDF files are usually accepted only for the final proof stage, not for initial submission.
2. Page size and margins
   • Page size: Usually A4 (210 × 297 mm) or US Letter (8.5 × 11 inches).
   • Margins: 2 cm on all sides.
3. Font
   • Typeface: Times New Roman.
   • Font size:
     • Main text: 12 pt.
     • Titles: Depends on heading level (e.g., Title – 14 pt bold, section headings – 12 pt bold).
     • Figure and table captions: 9 pt.
   • Line spacing: 1.5 lines for the main text.
4. Headings and subheadings
   • Levels: Clear distinction between heading levels (e.g., Heading 1, Heading 2, Heading 3) using font size, boldface, italics, or numbering (1., 1.1., 1.1.1.).
   • Formatting: Requirements for alignment (title – centered, others – justified); no spacing before or after headings.
5. Tables and figures (illustrations)
   • Numbering: Separate consecutive numbering for tables (Table 1, Table 2) and figures (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
   • Captions: Each table must have a clear title above the table; each figure must have a caption below. Captions must be self-explanatory.
   • In-text references: All tables and figures must be referenced in the main text (e.g., “as shown in Table 1” or “see Fig. 2”).
   • Image quality: Figures must be high resolution (minimum 300 dpi for raster images), clear, and legible. Color images must also be understandable in black and white.
   • Placement: Tables and figures should be placed as close as possible to their first mention in the text.
6. References and citations
   • Citation style: The journal requires APA 7th edition. This determines both in-text citations (e.g., (Author, Year)) and the formatting of the reference list.
   • Reference management: Authors are encouraged to use bibliography management tools (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) to automatically format references according to the chosen style.
7. Page numbering
   • Page numbers: Bottom center.
8. Indentation and alignment
   • Paragraph indentation: The first line of each paragraph should be indented 1.27 cm.
   • Text alignment: Justified.
9. Other elements
   • ORCID: The journal requires ORCID IDs for each author.
   • Sections “Conflict of Interest” and “Funding”: These sections, as well as “Acknowledgements,” must be clearly defined.
   • Supplemental materials: Large datasets, videos, or other materials that do not fit into the main text but complement the study may be submitted as supplementary materials. The journal will provide formatting instructions for these.

Important: The most crucial resource for preparing your article layout is the “Instructions for Authors” of the specific journal you are submitting to. Careful study and strict adherence to these instructions are essential for successful submission and will greatly speed up the review process.

4.2. Submission Procedure

To submit your article, please use the FORM FOR AUTHORS.

Ensure that all supplementary materials (tables, figures, equations, and images) are editable. If the managing editor requests editable elements, please provide them as soon as possible to initiate the review process. To prepare your manuscript for submission, carefully read the Submission Guidelines.

Violations of the research misconduct policy will result in rejection of the article and potential sanctions against the authors.

4.3. Peer Review Process

All articles undergo double-blind peer review. Detailed information can be found in the PEER REVIEW section.

In case of a negative review, authors may, at the discretion of the responsible editor, receive reviewer comments (without revealing the reviewer’s identity) and may appeal the editorial decision by responding to reviewers with arguments and explanations.

4.4. Article Processing Charge (APC) and Open Access Policy

The Article Processing Charge (APC) ensures full and immediate open access to the published article on the publisher’s website. This means that the article is available to readers without registration or any embargo period.

What does the APC cover?

• Publication process:
  • Administration of the peer review process.
  • Editing (copyediting, text formatting, preparation of figures and tables).
• Maintenance and archiving:
  • Permanent archiving of articles.
  • Website administration (article file hosting, technical maintenance, and support).
• Promotion and indexing:
  • Promotion of the journal and its articles (global content dissemination).
  • Provision of indexing services (inclusion in scientometric databases).
  • Customer support for authors and readers.

APC for “University Science”
The article processing charge for authors publishing in the University Science journal is 1000 UAH.

Manuscript length limit
If the manuscript exceeds the established limit of 6000 words (the limit does not include author information, title, abstract, keywords, references, or appendices), authors must contact the managing editor to clarify publication details and any possible additional conditions.

4.5. Proofreading

After layout, the publisher will provide proofs of accepted articles for error correction. Only changes to the title, author list, or scientific errors will be considered and approved by the publishing team.

The publisher is not responsible for errors resulting from author oversight. We reserve the right to make final decisions regarding the style and size of figures.