Peer-review process

ПРОЦЕДУРА РЕЦЕНЗУВАННЯ

Reviewing of scientific articles is carried out by expert evaluation of compliance with established requirements, quality, and originality of submitted manuscripts. The accuracy of the facts and data presented in the article, the validity of the conclusions drawn, the recommendations provided, as well as the scientific and practical level of the article is provided by both the author and the reviewer. The editorial board of the Collection uses double-blind review:

  • the reviewer doesn’t disclose personal information of the authors/ author;
  • the author/authors doesn’t/ don’t disclose personal information of the reviewer.

The review process includes the following steps:

Stage I: selection and registration of manuscripts

After receiving the manuscript of the article, the materials are checked by the secretary of the editorial board for compliance with the requirements for the content and design of the article, then they are registered in the journal of accounting of manuscripts of scientific articles by ordinal number and date of receipt. If the materials do not meet the set requirements, they are not accepted for consideration, and the author/author team receives an e-mail within three days.

A mandatory requirement: in the absence of a research degree of the author/authors, he/they is/are obliged to submit, along with the manuscript of the article, 2 reviews (or scan copies of the reviews, in case the author submit the materials to the e-mail address) of Doctors of Philosophy / Doctors of Science which will allow conducting an open peer review process. If one of the authors of the team has a doctorate degree, no reviews are submitted.

At this stage of reviewing it is possible to submit reviews of academic advisers of applicants for research degrees –  authors of articles. One review may be submitted by a specialist who, without a research degree and / or academic title, has experience of practical activity in the relevant field.

Stage 2: Reviewing  the manuscript by the co-chair of the editorial board and identifying the reviewers

The co-chair of the editorial board or his / her deputy/alternates/ analyzes/ analyze the manuscript for compliance with a specific field of science and the requirements of the Collection regarding the article’s composition, the interest of the publication for readers of the edition, the relevance for modern science. In case of a positive conclusion, he/she appoints a responsible editor from among the members of the editorial board to organize the process of reviewing the manuscript.

The number of reviewers should be at least two. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience and available scientific publications in the field. At this stage, the co-author of the peer-reviewed article can not be the reviewer, as well as academic advisers of applicants for a research degree.

Stage 3: Review of the manuscripts by the reviewers, their interaction with the responsible editor and authors

Reviewers analyze the manuscripts and submit them to the editorial office within ten days, prepared according to the established form of review (in case of electronic communication − scan copies of reviews).

The review indicates one of the variants of the conclusion regarding the manuscript:

1) recommend the article for publication without changes;

2) recommend the article for publication, taking into account the comments and recommendations of the reviewer, who agree with the author/authors;

3) return the article to the author for further revision;

4) reject the author/authors in publication of the article.

The interaction between the reviewers and the authors of the articles is ensured by the responsible secretary of the editorial board, who, in the case of any comments and recommendations of the reviewers, agrees with the authors on the changes to the manuscript. At the author’s request, the editorial board informs him of the decision to accept the manuscript for publication.

The review must provide the reviewer with an assessment of:

 - correspondence of the title of the article to its content, the content of the article  − to the thematic orientation of the Collection;

- relevance of the article;

- the degree of analysis of publications on the topic of the article;

- the methodological basis of the research;

- the degree of disclosure of the topic of the article in accordance with the purpose;

- reliability of conclusions;

- the accuracy of the references to the sources used, in particular the presence of the works of the authors mentioned in the text of the article.