The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scholarly works published in the journal through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts.
The scope of a peer review covers the following issues:
- whether the subject of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the thematic focus of the journal;
- whether the content of the article has a certain novelty value;
- whether the article corresponds to the scientific level of the journal;
- whether it is reasonable to publish the article, taking into account the previously published literature on this subject and whether it is of interest to a wide range of readers;
- what exactly are the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what corrections and additions should be made by the author, if any.
The review process keeps both the Author and the Reviewer anonymous. The peer-review is performed by two independent reviewers (double-blind review). The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity of reviewers.
State and foreign Doctors of Sciences, authors of scientific works on the relevant topic stated in the article, are involved in the external review. The external reviewer is usually selected arbitrarily, based on his/her current workload and consent.
The Reviewer must adhere to the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics, be objective and impartial.
E-forms of reviews and recommendations are stored at the editorial office for 3 years from the date of peer-reviewed article publication.
Scientific articles prepared for submission in strict accordance with the Requirements which have undergone the initial editorial check are sent for review. If there are comments at the stage of the initial assessment, the article can be returned to the author for revision.
Cannot be sent for review:
- articles authored (co-authored) by members of the Editorial Board;
- articles are written for the Editorial Board.
The peer review should be made within one month of receiving the manuscript.
The final decision on the article is made at the Editorial Board meeting. The Editorial Board includes editor-in-chief, associate editor, section editor (scientific editor), and executive editor. Decisions are made on the basis of reviews.
The decision of the Editors should be sent to the Author (s). Articles that require revision should be sent to the Author (s) together with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations for revision of the article. The revised version of the article should be sent for re-review. If the article does not pass peer review, it should be rejected. No further consideration of that article is possible.
Criteria for Publication
All submitted materials except for reviews and informational messages are subject to double-blind external review (the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous), which is carried out by experts in the relevant subject area (at least three reviewers). The aim of peer review is to facilitate the stringent selection of manuscripts for publication and to provide recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on an objective assessment of the scientific article content, determination of its compliance with ethical publishing standards, and comprehensive analysis of its advantages and disadvantages. Only manuscripts that have scientific value are accepted for publication. In addition, the article must meet the formatting requirements (see Formatting requirements for the article).
Peer review is designed to eliminate research of inferior quality and to ensure the consistency and balance of interests of authors, readers, the Editorial Board, reviewers and the institution in which the study was conducted.
Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief. The Reviewer should handle the manuscript within 10-14 days of accepting and send the review to the journal by e-mail (review form).
The article may be rejected or returned to the Author for revision:
- If the feedback from peer reviewer (s) is negative and it contains significant remarks;
- If the manuscript does not correspond to the aim and scope of the journal;
- If the manuscript does not meet the formatting requirements.
The revised article should be sent back to the Reviewer (s)
After proper revision and positive feedback, the article is considered at the Editorial Board meeting, where it is finally approved by open voting.
The Editors reserve the right to edit all accepted materials without distorting the standpoint of the author.
І. Peer Review Process
- All scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are subject to the obligatory review. Peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication shall be provided by the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the quality and promptness of the review. The time limit to finish the review should be set by the Executive Secretary.
- All articles submitted to the editorial office should be checked for plagiarism with special plagiarism detection software. If the manuscript or part of it has been published by other authors or by the author himself, it might be rejected.
- The Editor and the Scientific Secretary decide if the article matches formatting requirements and the scope of the journal, and send it for review. Members of the Editorial Board, highly qualified scientists and specialists of other state institutions (Doctors of Sciences) who have the scientific specialization in subject area may be involved in peer review process. The Reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work which is the subject to peer review. Reviewers declare that manuscripts are intellectual property of the authors and contain information that cannot be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles. Peer review process is anonymous and confident.
- The identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. The Author of the article should be given the opportunity to read the review text. Violation of anonymity is possible solely in the event of plagiarism or falsification of the materials presented in the article.
- If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the Executive Secretary should send the text of the review with recommendations and comments to the Author, so that he/she can use them to revise the article or to disprove them with arguments. The revised article may be resubmitted for the review.
- If the Reviewer has not recommended the article for publication, the Editorial Board may send the article for revision taking into account the reviewer's comments, as well as send it to other reviewers. The text of the negative review is sent to the Author.
- The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Editorial Board and should be included in the Editorial Board meeting protocol.
- After the Editorial Board accepts the article to publication, the Executive Secretary provides information about the Author and indicates the period of publication.
- Reviews of manuscripts must be kept in the editorial office for three years from the date of publication and provided at the request of Experts Councils of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.
ІІ. Peer Review Requirements
- The review must contain an expert analysis of the materials, an objective assessment and well-grounded recommendations. There is a review form.
- The Reviewer is guided by the requirements approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.
The article should contain the following key elements:
- problem statement related to important scientific or practical tasks;
- analysis of recent research and publications, which initiates the solution of the problem;
- emphasizes on previously unresolved tasks of the general problem which is the subject of the article;
- formulation of the goals of the article (task statement);
- presentation of the main material of the study with full reasoning of the obtained scientific results;
- conclusions and prospects for further research in this direction.
- Special attention should be paid to the following issues:
- general analysis of the scientific level of terminology, the structure of the article, the relevance of the topic;
- whether the content of the article corresponds to its title;
- evaluation of the article for publication in terms of language and stylistics, compliance with the formatting requirements;
- scientific nature, compliance of the methods, recommendations and research results with modern achievements of science;
- size of the article as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references).
Relevance of tables used in the article, illustrative material and its compliance with the coverage of the topic. Recommendations for rational reduction of article size (indicate the omitted part of the article): the significance of the peer-reviewed work among already published works on a similar topic: novelty and dissimilarity. If there is a copyright infringement or self-plagiarism; inaccuracies and errors made by the author.
- The reviewer must give recommendations to the author and publisher on how to improve the manuscript. The remarks and comments of the reviewer should be objective, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological level of the manuscript.
- The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions and clear recommendations on its publication in a particular scientific area, in accordance with the nomenclature of scientific specializations approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine.
- The Reviewer should send the completed and signed form to the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Secretary within the established term.
The editorial staff is obliged to:
- have a respectful attitude to the Author and his/her scientific focus, maintain confidentiality, prevent dishonesty in the processing of materials;
- do not correct the text independently, the final version of the manuscript approval for publication, the final version of the text should be approved by the author;
- do not accept manuscripts if they have no scientific value, do not correspond to the scope of the journal, contradict its editorial policy and possibly contain plagiarism or have been previously published in other periodicals;
- ensure the involvement of objective and competent reviewers, use double-blind review.
Reviewers are obliged to:
- adhere to the review deadline set by the Editorial Board;
- handle the manuscript as a confidential document, do not allow reviews by others; written reviews should also be confidential;
- not to use unpublished data from the manuscript;
- provide an objective, carefully considered and accurate assessment of the results of research.