"Collection of Scientific Works of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine" is a scholarly publication devoted to the publish materials and results of topical and original fundamental, applied, theoretical, experimental and methodological research in the field of Earth Sciences, covering geology, lithology, sedimentology, petrography, marine and ocean geology, palaeontology and stratigraphy, hydrogeology and engineering geology, geoecology, and geoinformatics.

The main objectives of the *Collection of Scientific works of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine* are to promptly publish research findings that will contribute to the development of current research areas, the growth of scientific schools, and the integration of Ukrainian science into the global scientific community; disseminating the latest knowledge within the Ukrainian and international scientific communities; creating a professional, open scientific information environment for interaction between experienced and young researchers; creating a professional space for high-quality public communication, the publication of dissertation research results, and so on; creating a platform for interdisciplinary interaction in the ‘Earth Sciences’; adhering to high standards of scientific ethics, peer review, open access and academic integrity.

It contains the results of scientific research addressing both fundamental and applied problems of general and regional geology in Ukraine. It covers a wide range of contemporary issues in geology — from general questions regarding the history of geological research, regional geological problems, modern research methods, the theory of lithogenesis, facies and formation analyses, the distribution of mineral resources in sedimentary basins, the characteristics of modern sedimentation and geoecology, to technogenic lithogenesis. It facilitates the publication of results obtained using modern precision and other research methods.

"Collection of Scientific Works of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine" practices blind review (the reviewer and author have no information about each other).

Manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Office of the “Collection…” undergo several stages of review.

Compliance with Formal Requirements: The manuscript will be reviewed for adherence to the guidelines outlined in the "Instructions for Authors." In cases of non-compliance (e.g., missing artical structural elements, incorrect formatting of references and citations), the author will be asked to make the necessary revisions.

Evaluation of Topic Relevance and Originality: The manuscript will be assessed for alignment with the journal's scope and for the novelty of the submitted text.

Manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the strikeplagiarism.com service. Only manuscripts with a similarity index of no more than 15% will proceed to the next stage of peer review. The editorial board will also assess the nature of the matches, the accuracy of citations, and the specifics of the research within the Earth sciences field.

In the case of non-compliance, the manuscript will either be rejected or returned to the author for revision. The decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or by a member (or members) of the editorial board to whom this function has been delegated.

The review process, including the assessment of formal requirements, alignment with “Collection …” scope, originality check, decision-making, and preparation of the response to the author, may take up to two weeks.

Independent Peer Review: Manuscripts that have been checked for compliance with formal requirements and originality are sent for peer review. Each article is reviewed by at least two experts.

The review is conducted by invited external experts or members of the editorial board. The review process follows either a "double-blind" model (where neither the authors nor the reviewers have information about each other) or a "single-blind" model (where authors do not receive information about the reviewer). The reviewer receives an agreement request to review the manuscript based on the submitted abstract. If they agree, they receive the anonymized manuscript and, after evaluation, fill out a standard review form. The review process should not exceed three weeks.

During the review process, the article and its title are assessed for alignment with the journal’s scope, relevance, scientific quality, strengths and weaknesses, as well as compliance with the journal's formatting requirements. The primary purpose of the review is to assist the Editorial Board of the " Collection …" in making editorial decisions, as well as to provide authors with the opportunity to improve their manuscript.

Communication between the author and the reviewer is carried out exclusively through the editorial office, which forwards the reviewer’s comments to the author. Direct contact between the author and the reviewer is only possible with mutual consent.

The author is expected to consider the reviewer’s comments, revise the manuscript according to the recommendations, or provide a reasoned response to them, and submit the revised version to the editorial office.

The revision period should not exceed two weeks from the receipt of the reviewer’s feedback. If the author is unable to make the revisions within this timeframe, it may be extended with the editor's consent, and the manuscript’s publication may be scheduled for the next issue of the " Collection…”

If the author fundamentally disagrees with the reviewer’s comments, they have the right to provide a reasoned response or withdraw the manuscript. If there is one negative review, the manuscript is sent to an additional reviewer. If two negative reviews are received, the manuscript is rejected by the editorial board.

Review Conclusion:
• Recommended for publication without significant changes,
• Recommended for publication with consideration of the comments,
• Recommended for manuscript revision and resubmission for review,
• Not recommended for publication,
is provided to the author without the reviewer’s signature.

The editorial board of the " Collection..." sends the author a consolidated review along with a PDF file containing the reviewers' comments and feedback.

The final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a member (or members) of the editorial board to whom this function has been delegated. The decision is recorded in the system.

Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes literary editing, and the final revisions are made by the authors.

Reviewer Selection Criteria: The editorial board invites reviewers based on their scientific qualifications, professional competence, and research experience in the relevant field. The main criteria include having a scientific degree or significant scientific achievements related to the manuscript's topic, publications in national or international scientific journals, and experience in reviewing scientific papers.

“Collection of Scientific Works of the Institute of Geological Sciences NAS of Ukraine” is published twice a year.

This magazine is practicing a policy of immediate open access to published content, supporting the principles of the free flow of scientific information and global exchange of knowledge for the general social progress.

Information regarding processing and publication fees, or the absence thereof

The editorial board of the *Collection of Scientific Papers of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine* operates on an open-access model. It provides free and unrestricted access to all published materials. Users may view, download, copy, distribute, print, search the full texts of articles, and post HTML links to them without needing permission from the author or publisher.

The journal’s publisher does not charge authors any fees at any stage of the editorial and publishing process; publication of articles in the journal is free of charge. The publisher does not charge fees for submission, processing, peer review, publication, or access to published materials.

Compliance with COPE and DORA Principles and Recommendations

The Collections adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, transparency, and academic integrity as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

The editorial policy aims to prevent academic misconduct (including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and conflicts of interest) and ensures editorial independence and transparent peer review in line with COPE principles.

In accordance with DORA, the Collection does not rely on journal-based metrics as a primary measure of research quality and promotes qualitative assessment based on the scholarly merit, originality, and relevance of research outputs.

The Journal adheres to the recommendations of the European Association of Scientific Editors regarding the use of AI in scientific communication and supports its use as a supporting tool, provided that the principles of transparency and academic integrity are upheld.

1. General Principles
The use of AI tools is permitted as an auxiliary aid during the preparation of manuscripts and reviews. Authors and reviewers bear full responsibility for the content of the materials, the accuracy of the data, the correctness of references, and adherence to academic integrity.

2. Declaration of AI use
Authors are required to declare the use of AI in the ‘Declaration of AI Use’ section, specifying:
• the name of the tool;
• the purpose of use.
The following statement is permitted: ‘AI was not used during the preparation of this article’.

3. Permissible use of AI
The use of AI is permitted for auxiliary tasks, in particular:
• linguistic and stylistic editing (translation, grammar, stylistic improvement);
• formatting of text and bibliography;
• structuring of material;
• searching for and preliminary summarising of literature (subject to mandatory verification);
• transcription and technical data processing.
Such use must not alter the scientific content of the work.

4. Restrictions
The following are not permitted:
• using AI as a source of information or citing it as an author;
• generating or interpreting scientific results without the author’s supervision;
• using fictitious or unverified sources;
• concealed (undeclared) use of AI.
AI tools may not be listed as co-authors.

5. Illustrative materials
Only technical image processing (brightness, contrast, colour balance) is permitted, without altering their content.
Images created or substantially altered using AI will not be accepted.

6. Definitions
AI tools are defined as software or online services that use artificial intelligence algorithms to generate, analyse or edit text, images or data (text assistants (e.g. ChatGPT, Copilot), translation tools (DeepL), editors with AI features (Grammarly, MS Word Editor), PDF/data analysis tools)

Example of a declaration
In preparing this article, the authors used [name of tool] for [purpose of use]. The results obtained were verified by the authors. The authors bear full responsibility for the content of the work.

Authors published in this journal agree to the following terms:

1. Authors hold the rights for their work and grant the journal the right to first publish this work under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows others to freely distribute published work for non-commercial purposes, with a mandatory a reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish in a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. The journal policy permits and encourages the authors to post on the Internet (for example, in repositories of institutions or on personal websites) the manuscript of the work, both before submitting this manuscript to the editor and during its editing, as it promotes the emergence of productive scientific discussion, and has a positive impact on the promptness and dynamics of citing a published work (see The Effect of Open Access).

Ethics Publications

• The Editorial Board is responsible for issuing, conducting rigorous selection and review of author manuscripts and reserving the right to reject or return for revision article.
• In making decisions regarding the publication of the editorial board is guided only reliability of the data and scientific value of the work. The content of the articles evaluated regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality, social status, place of work or political affiliation of the author(s).
• The editorial board does not give others information related to the content of the manuscript that is under consideration, other than those participating in professional evaluation of this manuscript. Unpublished data are not used for personal purposes and not transferred to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the editing and related benefits to remain confidential and not used for personal gain.
• The editorial board does not allow for the publication of the article, if sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism and is against falsification, plagiarism and referrals author of one of several magazines.
• The editorial board together with the publisher in identifying conflict takes all necessary measures to restore the violated rights.

• Reviewer provides scientific expertise copyright material impartially.
• Article received on review, considered as a confidential document that cannot be disclosed to third parties or discussion.
• Reviewer obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the findings of the study and to determine whether the manuscript high scientific and literary standards. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
• Unpublished data from manuscripts submitted for consideration, the reviewer cannot be used for personal purposes.
• Reviewer that is not qualified to assess the article, or may not be objective, for example in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization should inform the editorial asking to exclude him from the process of reviewing this article.

• Authors are responsible for the innovation and reliability of the results of scientific research. Knowingly false or falsified data is unacceptable.
• Authors should ensure complete originality of research results contained in the submitted manuscript. Borrowed fragments or statements should be prepared with the obligatory indication of the author and source. Excessive borrowing and plagiarism in any form, including unformed quote, paraphrase or assignment of rights to other people's research results are unethical and unacceptable. Authors bear all responsibility for the contents of the articles and by the fact of their publication.
• Authors should recognize the contribution of all persons to some extent influenced the course of the study, in particular, the article must be submitted to the reference work that were important during the study.
• Authors should not give in "Collection of Scientific Works of the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine" article that sent to other magazines and there are pending and also articles that have been published in other journals.
• Co-authors of the article should be given all the persons who have made a significant contribution to the study. Among the co-authors indicate unacceptable persons not involved in the study.
• If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article during its consideration of or after its publication, it must quickly inform the editorial of the magazine.