PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE

General Provisions

The peer review procedure, publication ethics and editorial policy of the collection of scientific papers “Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics” of the National Scientific Center “Hon. Prof. M. S. Bokarius Forensic Science Institute” of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University (hereinafter — the Collection) comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, www.publicationethics.org). The policy is aimed at ensuring the most objective evaluation of the content of scientific articles, determining their compliance with the requirements of a scholarly publication, and providing a comprehensive analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.

All materials submitted to the editorial board undergo peer review in order to select articles that meet the requirements of the Collection.

Peer review is carried out by members of the editorial board, members of the advisory board, and independent experts in the relevant fields of knowledge. A double-anonymized peer review system is applied, under which neither the author nor the reviewer knows the identity of the other.

The peer review process is conducted in order to evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its relevance, practical significance, and scientific value. Manuscripts are assessed without regard to the authors’ ethnic origin, gender, religion, political views, or other characteristics.

For decision-making purposes, the manuscript is reviewed by at least two experts: one member of the editorial board and one member of the advisory board or an independent expert in the relevant field of knowledge, or two independent experts in the relevant field of knowledge.

Criteria for selecting reviewers:

PhD or Doctor of Sciences degree;
publications related to the topic of the reviewed article;
publication of scientific papers in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s);
no more than one reviewer from the author’s institution;
involvement of international reviewers (where possible);
no co-authorship with the author of the reviewed work during the last three years.

The reviewer provides a conclusion on the possibility / possibility after revision / impossibility of publishing the article in the scientific journal after evaluating it according to the following criteria:

correspondence between the title of the article and its content;
sufficient justification of the relevance of the topic;
completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the specified problem;
correspondence between the purpose of the article, its title, and the presentation of the main material;
logical substantiation of the obtained scientific results;
scientific novelty of the article demonstrating its contribution to the relevant scientific field;
correspondence of the conclusions to the purpose of the article;
terminological clarity of the article;
proper design of the illustrative materials of the article;
absence of the need for substantial scientific and literary editing;
presence of references to cited sources;
formatting of the list of references and References in accordance with the requirements of the Collection, etc.

All articles are checked for plagiarism using specialized software.

Manuscripts sent to reviewers are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute confidential information. Therefore, peer review is conducted under conditions of confidentiality, and information about the article is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers.

Procedure for Reviewing Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted by authors that do not meet the requirements for publication in the Collection are not considered.

To determine the degree of text originality of each paper submitted for review, specialized software (StrikePlagiarism) is used. The similarity index must not exceed 12% of the total volume of the article. When submitting review-type materials, a higher similarity percentage is allowed provided that references to sources are properly indicated (up to 40%).

All manuscripts undergo peer review. After submission to the Collection, the manuscript undergoes an initial preliminary review by the editorial board in order to determine its compliance with the scope of the Collection; therefore, it may be returned to the author(s) for revision. If the editorial board considers that the manuscript meets the requirements of the Collection, the article is sent for peer review.

The peer review process is anonymous: the reviewer who analyzes the article does not know the identity of the author, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. Communication between the author and the reviewer is carried out by the executive secretary of the publication through correspondence using communication tools (usually via the Collection’s email address).

The period for reviewing a scientific publication by a reviewer should not exceed 14 days. However, in each individual case the review period may be adjusted in order to ensure the most objective evaluation of the quality of the submitted materials.

Additional materials are also subject to expert evaluation.

The Chair (Co-Chair) of the editorial board, having received the manuscript for evaluation, appoints an expert taking into account possible conflicts of interest.

The electronic evaluation form used by reviewers contains a checklist that helps cover all aspects of the publication.

In the final section of the evaluation form, reviewers must add comments and suggestions for improvement, which are forwarded to the authors without disclosing the reviewers’ identities.

Reviews are stored by the editorial board for three years.

Based on the results of the peer review, the author may receive one of the following decisions:

a) accepted for publication;
b) revisions and/or improvements are required;
c) additional peer review is required;
d) transferred to another publication of the NSC FSI;
e) rejected for publication.

If conflicting conclusions are received from reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a third expert or to the Chair of the editorial board to obtain an additional opinion or to make a final decision.

If publication is rejected or revision of the manuscript is required, the reviewer provides a written, reasoned explanation for such a decision. The revised version is sent for repeated peer review. If the repeated review result is negative, the article is finally rejected and is not subject to further consideration by the editorial board.

If the manuscript is rejected for publication or reviewer comments are present, in accordance with the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the editorial board initiates a scientifically grounded discussion with the author(s).

If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned explanation to the editorial board of the scientific publication. In such cases, the scientific publication is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the publication for additional or new peer review by another expert in accordance with the double-anonymized review principle. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a scientific publication if the author(s) ignore the requirements and comments of the reviewers.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject the manuscript if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

The final decision on publication is made by the Chair (Co-Chair) of the editorial board, taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers and the scope of the Collection.

The final decision on the content and recommendation for publication of each issue of the Collection is approved by a resolution of the Academic Council of the National Scientific Center “Hon. Prof. M. S. Bokarius Forensic Science Institute” of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and is indicated by the relevant note on the back of the title page of the Collection.

A manuscript approved for publication undergoes technical and literary editing. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the manuscript may be made by language editors without the author’s consent. If necessary or at the author’s request, the final version of the article with editorial and proofreading corrections is sent to the author for approval.

Authors are responsible for the content of each article and for any copyright violations, as well as for the scientific and practical level of the work and the reliability of facts, data and conclusions.

Procedure for Replacing a Reviewer in the Event of a Conflict of Interest Between the Author and the Reviewer

In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review process. The replacement is carried out by appointing a new independent expert by the Editor-in-Chief (Co-Editor-in-Chief) or the editorial board. The manuscript is anonymized, and the previous evaluation is not taken into account in order to ensure objectivity.

Procedure in the Event of a Conflict of Interest:

Notification — if a reviewer identifies a conflict (personal relationships, joint research), they return the article to the editorial board within 5 days;
Replacement — the editorial board appoints another specialist in the relevant field of knowledge;
Anonymity — the new procedure ensures double-anonymized peer review in order to avoid the influence of the previous conflict.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COPE, WAME, DORA, ETC.

The editorial board of the Collection adheres to the principles and recommendations of international organizations:

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)

Transparency in the process of submission, peer review and publication of articles.
Impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers.
Academic integrity — avoidance of plagiarism, falsification, and duplicate publications.
Proper authorship — clear identification of the contribution of each author.
Handling complaints — availability of open and clear procedures for considering appeals and complaints regarding ethics.

WAME (World Association of Medical Editors)

Editorial independence — decisions are made without pressure from sponsors, institutions or commercial interests.
Conflicts of interest — all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare them.
Peer review — ensuring objective, fair and timely expert evaluation.
Transparency of funding — disclosure of information about grants, sponsors and sources of research funding.

DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment)

Not limiting research evaluation to bibliometric indicators (impact factor, h-index), but assessing research by its quality, novelty and contribution to science.
Fair evaluation of different types of research outputs — software, data, algorithms, technical solutions, not only articles.
Recognition of interdisciplinary research as equal to traditional publications.
Encouraging open science — publishing preprints and providing open access to data and codes.

The editorial board regularly reviews its policy, making adjustments in accordance with the updated recommendations of COPE, WAME and DORA in order to ensure the highest level of academic integrity and transparency.

The review form can be downloaded here: REVIEW FORM

Authors, the editorial office, reviewers, and editors communicate exclusively via the Collection’s email: zbirnyk_nscfsi@hniise.gov.ua.