Reviewer
CONTENT
1. Aim, Objectives, Principles of Review
2. Review Procedure and Regulations
2.1. Procedure for Submitting Manuscripts
2.2. Regulations for Reviewing Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members
2.3. Regulations for the Review and Evaluation of Manuscripts
3. Peer Review
3.1. General Procedure
3.2. Type of Review
3.3. Criteria for Reviewing Submissions
3.4. Requirements for Reviewers
4. Results of Peer Review
5. Basic Grounds for Finishing off the Article
6. Revision Policy
7. Reasons of Refuse for Publication of the Articles
1. Aim, Objectives, Principles of Reviewing
The Aim of peer review is standard-setting of authorial manuscripts quality.
The Objectives of peer review consist in verification of:
- general scientific level of the article, in particular research actuality, presence of problem in it, its meaningfulness for decision of the important scientific and practical tasks, correctness and expediency of methods application at the conducted researches, level of generalization at formulation of research conclusions and others like that;
- semantic filling and framework of the article;
- correctness of the use of professional (special) vocabulary and others like that.
Reviewing Principles
The Editorial Board of the journal adheres to the following principles and recommendations of international organizations:
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
- Openness of procedures: ensuring transparency at all stages — from manuscript submission to publication.
bull. - Objectivity of review: adherence to the principles of impartiality and professional independence of the editorial board and reviewers.
- Compliance with academic standards: prevention of plagiarism, data manipulation, and duplicate publications.
- Verification of authorship: clear distribution of roles and identification of the personal contribution of each participant in the research.
- Appeals mechanism: functioning of a transparent system for considering ethical disputes and complaints.
WAME (World Association of Medical Editors)
- Editorial autonomy: ensuring that the editor-in-chief's decisions are independent of external influence, including commercial entities, institutions, or grantors.
- Disclosure of conflicts of interest: mandatory disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest by all participants in the publication process.
- Quality of expert evaluation: adherence to standards of objectivity, impartiality, and established deadlines in the review process.
- Financial transparency: full disclosure of information about research funding sources and available grant support.
DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment)
- Priority of substantive assessment: transition from formal metrics (impact factor, Hirsch index) to qualitative analysis of scientific novelty and actual contribution to the field.
- Diversification of scientific achievements: recognition of not only articles but also software products, datasets, algorithms, and technical developments as full-fledged research results.
- Legitimization of interdisciplinarity: equal treatment of cross-sectoral projects alongside traditional monodisciplinary works.
- Stimulation of Open Science: support for open science practices, in particular the dissemination of preprints and ensuring free access to research data and source code.
2. Review Procedure and Regulations
2.1. Procedure for Submitting Manuscripts
Articles that do not correspond to the scientific profile of the journal are not sent for review. The information about refusal and its further publication sent to the author.
- The order of publication of articles is determined by the date of their registration upon receipt by the editorial office. Works devoted to particularly topical scientific issues, as well as those containing fundamentally new information, may, at the discretion of the editorial board, be published out of turn.
- Articles that do not correspond to the scientific profile of the journal are not sent for review. The author is sent a notification of refusal to consider and publish the article.
- Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo an initial check for compliance with the profile of the Journal, completeness, and correctness of their formatting in accordance with the requirements for the formatting of manuscripts published on the website in the menu Guidelines for Author(s) Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted standards are not registered and are not accepted for further consideration, and their authors are notified accordingly.
- All manuscripts submitted to the reviewer must be checked for uniqueness and originality using appropriate software (in particular, StrikePlagiarism).
- The initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out either by the editor-in-chief, his deputy, or the executive secretary.
- Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are assigned a unique registration code, which ensures the author's anonymity during the review process.
- If the manuscript complies with the Journal's policy and rules for preparing articles for publication, and if the plagiarism check is positive, the manuscript is sent for review to two independent experts in the relevant field of knowledge.
- Within a specified period, the reviewers review the manuscript in accordance with the established criteria.
- After the final review of the article, the reviewers fill out a standardized form containing their final conclusions. In preparing this form, the editorial board used and summarized the provisions of the internationally recognized recommendations on the review procedure, Review Quality Instrument. Based on the results of the review, the experts choose one of the options for recommendations for further publication of the article.
- The Editorial Board sends the author a review with the decision and provides further communication support.
- The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
- Positive reviews confirming that the articles meet the publication's requirements are presented at a meeting of the Editorial Board.
- Review documentation is stored in the editorial office archive for three years and is provided to authorized state bodies upon official request.
- The editorial office does not engage in substantive discussions with authors about articles, correspondence about the technology of writing and formatting scientific publications, and does not engage in bringing articles up to the required scientific and methodological level.
2.2. Regulations for Reviewing Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members
To ensure the objectivity and impartiality of the review process, the Publication establishes a special procedure for reviewing articles whose authors or co-authors are the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, or editorial staff.
1. Removal from process Management
If the author of the submitted manuscript holds a position in the editorial office, he is completely removed from any decisions regarding his work. In particular:
- He does not have access to confidential data about reviewers in the publishing system.
- He cannot participate in editorial board meetings where the fate of his manuscript is discussed.
2. Appointment of an Independent Editor-in-Chief
Instead of the Editor-in-Chief (if he is the author) or a profile editor, the Chairman of the Editorial Board or Deputy Editor-in-Chief appoints an Independent Editor-in-chief.
- Requirement: this person has not published jointly with the author over the past 3–5 years and does not work in the same structural unit.
- Function: he is the one who carries out the initial review and selects the reviewers
3. Independent Review
The manuscripts of these authors are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review.
The reviewers must be external experts (not members of the editorial board of this publication and not employees of the institution where the author works).
In the event of conflicting opinions, a third independent expert is appointed, whose decision is decisive.
4. Transparency and Publicity
If the article is accepted for publication, the final version of the publication (in the section "Conflict of Interest" or "Disclosure") must state:
"This manuscript was submitted by a member of the editorial board/editor. The review process was carried out according to an independent procedure under the guidance of the invited editor [Name/Anonymous] without the author's access to the decision-making process".
2.3. Regulations for the Review and Evaluation of Manuscripts
- I. Pre-screening (up to 7 days). The editorial board evaluates the relevance of the article, checks the uniqueness of the text using StrikePlagiarism, and verifies compliance with technical requirements. Based on the results, the article is either accepted for review or rejected.
- II. Organization of expertise (7–14 days). Two independent experts are assigned to each work. Reviewing is conducted on a double-blind basis (the author and reviewer remain anonymous).
- III. Expert evaluation (4 to 8 weeks). Reviewers analyze the scientific value: from relevance, novelty, and correctness of methodology to the validity of conclusions, quality of the literature review, and language.
- IV. Classification of decisions. The review may contain a recommendation to accept, revise (minor/major revision), or reject the manuscript. In controversial cases, a third expert is involved.
- V. Rediscussion (up to 4 weeks). The author reviews the comments and provides reasoned responses to each point (point-by-point response). The deadline for corrections is 30 calendar days.
- VI. Final approval (up to 4 weeks). The final resolution is made by the Editor-in-Chief. Positive reviews that confirm the possibility of accepting articles for publication are announced at editorial board meetings.
- VII. Archiving. Review materials are stored in the editorial office for 3 years and are provided upon request by relevant state authorities (Ministry of Education and Science).
Back to top
3. Review Procedure
3.1. General Principles
The review process is based on the quality standards for scientific publications. The review aims to assess the originality, relevance, and scientific value of the materials in accordance with the journal's priorities and provisions Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) for editors (Elsevier), WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity”. This approach is based on the experience of leading scientific communities and is designed to ensure high-quality content and impartiality in the selection of manuscripts. The analysis process involves an objective assessment of the content for compliance with international standards, a professional comprehensive analysis of the article, and identification of its shortcomings.
Back to top
3.2. Type of Review
The Journal adheres to the rules of double-blind (anonymous) review: authors are not informed of the names of reviewers, and reviewers are not informed of the names of authors. Interaction between reviewers and authors is carried out only through authorized members of the editorial board.
The Editorial Board does not disclose any information about the manuscript (content, review process, reviewers' critical comments, final decision) to anyone except the members of the Journal's Editorial Board, the author, and the reviewers.
Reviews are submitted only to authorized members of the Journal's editorial board and the author.
Back to top
3.3. Criteria for Reviewing Submissions
The review form includes the following analysis items:
- Relevance of the title: consistency of the title with the main text of the article.
- Coherence of the abstract: consistency of the summary with the actual content.
- Scientific significance: theoretical and practical value of the research.
- Relevance and novelty: justification of the urgency and uniqueness of the chosen topic.
- Methodological basis: validity of the chosen research methods.
- Analysis of results: quality and depth of interpretation of the data obtained.
- Terminological accuracy: correct use of specialized vocabulary.
- Justification of conclusions: logic and relevance of the final conclusions.
- Stylistic design: compliance with language norms and requirements of scientific style.
- Source base: depth and quality of processing of professional literature.
- Data visualization: quality, correctness, and aesthetics of tables and figures.
Back to top
3.4. Requirements for Reviewers
- Qualification level: a PhD or doctorate in a relevant field.
- Scientific background: proven research experience and publications on the subject of the manuscript.
- International recognition: active publications in journals indexed by Scopus and/or Web of Science.
- Academic integrity: no conflict of interest with the team of authors.
- Professional distance: the reviewer cannot have been a co-author of the candidate's work within the last 3 years.
- Institutional independence: only one expert from a single institution (the author's place of work) may be involved.
- Internationalization: priority is given to involving foreign experts in the review process.
4. Result of Peer Review
Recommendations of Reviewers and Decisions of the Editorial Board
- recommended for publication in the version submitted by the author;
- recommended for publication after minor revisions and technical corrections without additional review;
- substantial revision of the article's content and additional review required;
- reject the article with the possibility of resubmission;
- reject the article without resubmission (final rejection).
- If the review contains recommendations for revision, the manuscript is returned to the author for appropriate corrections. If the author disagrees with the expert's conclusions, they have the right to provide a reasoned rebuttal or argue their position on the provisions that were found to be controversial.
- The author adds a cover letter to the updated text with comprehensive responses to the comments and explanations of all changes made. The revised article is resubmitted to the reviewer for final evaluation. If the reviewer agrees with the author's arguments, they prepare a positive conclusion on the possibility of publication.
- The grounds for re-review may include: a statement by the expert about insufficient competence in specific issues considered in the manuscript; unsatisfactory quality of the initial expert opinion (insufficient argumentation or bias); high level of controversy surrounding key provisions of the article, requiring additional expert evaluation.
- In the event of disputes or disagreement between the author and the expert's conclusions, the manuscript shall be reviewed at a meeting of the Editorial Board's working group. The group may decide to appoint an additional or repeat review by another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject an article if the author has not provided convincing arguments in their favor or has refused to take into account the expert's substantive comments. At the request of the first reviewer, the editorial board may refer the article to another specialist, subject to the principles of double-blind review.
- The final decision on the publication of an article that has undergone additional or repeated review is made by the editor-in-chief (or, at his request, a member of the Editorial Board). In complex cases, the issue is submitted for consideration at a meeting of the editorial board. After the manuscript is approved, the executive secretary informs the author that the material has been accepted for publication and indicates the expected publication date.
- After a positive decision on publication is made, the article is sent to the editorial portfolio of the Journal and prepared for publication according to the order and relevance of the material. In certain cases, due to publishing requirements (thematic focus of the issue, particular relevance, etc.), the manuscript may be published out of turn in the next issue by decision of the Editor-in-Chief.
- The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit materials scientifically and literarily in consultation with the author. Technical corrections (lexical, grammatical, punctuation, or formatting) that do not affect the content of the research are made by the editorial board without additional approval. If necessary or at the author's request, the manuscript may be sent to the author in the form of a layout (mock-up) for final review and approval.
- The Editorial Board provides the author with a certificate confirming the approval of the manuscript for publication. The document is issued under the signature of the Editor-in-Chief.
- The date of acceptance of the article for publication is considered to be the date of the editorial board's decision to include it in the relevant issue of the scientific publication.
5. Basic Grounds for Finishing off the Article
- Scientific Value and Methodology
- Lack of scientific novelty: The work does not clearly define the author's innovative contribution and how it differs from already known scientific results.
- Methodological incompleteness: Insufficient description of methods, materials, and procedures, making it impossible for other scientists to reproduce the experiment.
- Weak justification: Theoretical positions, concepts, and conclusions are not supported by sufficient empirical data or arguments.
- Errors in analysis: Incorrect description of the experimental procedure or errors in the calculation of statistical indicators.
- Lack of clarity in presentation: Lack of clear formulation of hypotheses, the essence of experiments, or descriptions of statistical samples.
- Working with Sources and Relevance
- Imbalance in literature. Absence of contemporary domestic and foreign works relevant to the journal's profile that cover current research in the list of sources.
- Citation violations. Discrepancies between the authors' names in the text and the list of references.
- Formal and Technical Requirements
- Inconsistent abstracts. Absence of abstracts in Ukrainian or English, or their inconsistency with the established volume and content requirements.
- Structure violations. The article does not comply with the regulated structure of a scientific publication.
- Formatting of sources. Absence of transliteration of the list of references or violation of the APA (American Psychological Association) standard.
- Language quality. The text does not comply with the norms of scientific style and speech culture.
- Academic Integrity and Reliability
- Copyright infringement. Detection of plagiarism, incorrect borrowing of intellectual property, lack of references to primary sources.
- Data unreliability. The facts, figures, and data provided are not properly substantiated, and the conclusions are not logically justified.
6. Revision Policy
If, based on the results of the review, the article is recommended for publication subject to revisions, the author is given 30 calendar days to prepare an updated version.
The reviewer's re-analysis of the article requires the author to take the following necessary steps:
- Review of comments: carefully consider all comments from the editor and reviewers.
- Revision of content: conduct necessary additional experiments or re-analyse data in accordance with expert recommendations.
- Report on changes: provide detailed explanations of the corrections made in a cover letter via the Journal's electronic system.
- Scientific discussion: adhere to the principles of academic ethics. Clearly indicate the points with which you agree and justify your position on controversial issues.
- Visualization of corrections: highlight in color all changes made to the text of the manuscript during revision.
- Submission of the version: upload the updated manuscript as a new version via the Journal's website within the deadlines set by the Editorial Board.
Tips for Successfully Completing this Stage
- Use Track Changes mode in the article file itself or highlight new text in color.
- Meet deadlines: if you are unable to make changes by the deadline, be sure to notify the editor in advance.
- Respond to each point: even if a comment seems minor, the editors need to see that you have addressed it.
ATTENTION !
- Revising an article does not guarantee its automatic acceptance. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after reviewing the revised material.
- If the author strongly disagrees with the comments, they have the right to send a scientifically substantiated rebuttal.
7. Reasons of Refuse for Publication of the Articles
In case of a negative decision, the editorial board is guided by the following criteria:
- Evidence of academic misconduct (plagiarism).
- Inconsistency of the manuscript's content with the scientific profile and subject matter of the publication.
- Violation of the standards for the format and structure of scientific articles established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international conventions.
- Ignoring reviewers' comments or the author's refusal to make the necessary corrections to controversial points.
- The editorial board's decision, based on two negative reviews, to reject the manuscript without the right to resubmit it.
