The journal "Demographic Review" follows the principles of publishing ethics set forth in the Declaration of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ANRI) "Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications" and in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical obligations of the authors

1. By submitting a manuscript for consideration as an original paper, the authors thereby confirm that the material does not contain plagiarism, has not been published before, and is not also under consideration in the editorial office of other publications. The author has the right to withdraw the manuscript at any stage of its consideration (before signature of a publishing licence agreement) with a mandatory notification to the editorial office.

1. Only persons who have made a significant contribution to the paper and the preparation of the submitted material should be indicated as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for indicating all the co-authors and for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to submit it for publication in the journal.
2. The authors are responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of the scientific research, for the selection and reliability of the information contained in papers, for citations, statistical and sociological data, etc. It is not allowed to use other people's texts without reference to the source and authorship of these texts.
3. If there are significant errors or inaccuracies in the submitted paper, the authors must notify the editor about it and cooperate with the editorial board to correct them.
4. When disagreeing with other authors or publications, the authors must observe the rules of academic ethics.
5. The authors of accepted papers enter into a license agreement with the publisher in an established form.

Ethical obligations of the Editorial Office

1. The editorial office is guided by scientific principles, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality.
2. Communication with the authors is based on the principles of courtesy, goodwill, honesty and transparency.
3. The editorial Board checks all submitted manuscripts submitted as original articles using the anti-Plagiarism system. In case of multiple borrowings, the editorial Board acts in accordance with the COPE rules.
4. The editorial office guarantees the consideration of all materials submitted for publication in the journal without any prejudice, and ensures their peer review observing double anonymity.
5. The editorial office does its best to find the most suitable and qualified reviewers in each research field. The reviewers can be members of the editorial board and the international editorial council (internal review), but in most cases the manuscript is sent to independent experts (external review).
6. The decision to publish the material is made based on the opinion of reviewers. Positive peer reviews are not a sufficient basis for the manuscript to be published. The final decision on publication is made by the members of the editorial board after the author's revisions based on the comments of the reviewers and editorial board members. In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision.
7. The editorial office shall ensure the confidentiality of all matters related to the content and peer review of the manuscript. Information on the content of the manuscript can be provided only to persons participating in its professional evaluation. Unpublished data contained in the manuscripts submitted for peer review cannot be used by anyone without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas that become known to persons involved in editing or reviewing cannot be used by them for personal purposes.
8. The author is entitled to express a reasoned point of view that does not coincide with the opinion of the editorial office.
9. The editorial office shall not allow publications promoting the inciting of social, ethnic or religious hatred.
10. The editorial office is entitled to edit the sequence of the publications in accordance with the topics of the upcoming issues.
11. The editorial office is not obliged to correspond with the authors after sending the results of the final expertise, as well as with the authors of letters concerning the refusal to publish them.

 Ethical obligations of the reviewers

1. The main purpose of the peer review is to provide objective assessment of the scientific characteristics of the paper in order to help the editor-in-chief and the editorial board to make a reasoned decision on the advisability of publishing the manuscript, and the authors to improve the manuscript submitted for publication.
2. A manuscript received for peer review should be considered by the reviewer as a confidential document. It cannot be shown to anyone or discussed with anyone, except in cases approved by the editorial office.
3. The position of the reviewer should be reasoned and impartial.
4. The reviewer should draw the author's and editorial office's attention to any meaningful similarity between the manuscript submitted for peer review and any other publication that he or she personally knows about. Notes on publications, observations, measurements or arguments, which, according to the reviewer, should be referenced by the author, must be accompanied by corresponding references to original source.
5. Reviewers cannot evaluate manuscripts in respect of which there is a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or any other relationship with any of the authors, projects or organizations with links to the article.
6. The reviewer is entitled to refuse to evaluate the proposed article if he feels that he is not qualified enough to prepare a peer review in this field or he cannot prepare the requested peer review within the agreed time. With the approval of the editorial office the review period may be prolonged.
7. The reviewer is entitled to request the manuscript for re-review.
8. Fees are not paid to reviewers.