Faced with a prolonged economic crisis, Ukrainian research institutes are under pressure as a direct result of limited funding. This has also had a negative impact on the functionality of librarians who have seen limitations in acquisitions. Despite the economic difficulties, Ukrainian academic librarians are trying to offer their users specialized services that involve active librarian mediation in the process of preparing and disseminating the results of scientific work of users, in particular in the detection and struggle with pseudoscientific journals. In this paper, based on a survey of librarians from leading Ukrainian universities, we studied for the first time, the main information resources and tools used by Ukrainian experts to test scientific journals for their further recommendation to library users as reliable channels for disseminating research results. These are tools and resources such as Scopus, Web of Science, Beall's black lists, the DOAJ, Think. Check Submit, and The Norwegian Register. We describe the benefits and limitations that may arise in the work of Ukrainian academic librarians when each of the identified resources is used. Modern times of reformation in Ukrainian science has opened up new opportunities for Ukrainian academic librarians. As a result, if they are able to successfully implement such services, they can regain a prominent place in the scientific life of institutions and on the global academic platform.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is negatively affecting the development of the Ukrainian academy, now and in the foreseeable future.• Different academic stakeholders around the world have reacted differently to this war, some imposing sanctions against Russia and/or providing aid to Ukraine.• Some scientific publishers have partially or temporarily suspended sales and marketing of products and services to research organizations in Russia and Belarus.• The issue of banning publication in international journals by authors from Russian institutions remains controversial and needs to be carefully considered by various stakeholders.

On occasion, following the publication of a preprint or paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes related to either or all of these aspects. When editors-inchief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence and/or feedback from the authors and/or their institute, in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alertive (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long period of time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. For example, some COPE members issue a single EoC with a single digital object identifier for a cluster of papers, while other COPE members issue one EoC per paper. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.

No abstract