Preliminary screening
All manuscripts undergo a two-stage preliminary screening process.
Stage I: Check of article compliance with formatting guideline.
Stage II: plagiarism check. The manuscript is evaluated using the StrikePlagiarism.com service. The originality of the article must exceed 80%.
General provisions
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory peer review. All authors are informed in advance about the review process.
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process for manuscripts.
Peer review of articles is conducted on a voluntary and unpaid basis.
The original reviews are stored in the editorial office for five years from the date of publication of the articles and may be provided to the author or the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine upon request.
Selection of reviewers
Reviewers are selected individually for each manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief. Both members of the journal’s editorial board and external specialists with recognized expertise in the relevant field of the manuscript are involved in the review process. When selecting reviewers, consideration is given to whether they have publications related to the topic of the manuscript within the last three years.
Conflict of interest
The editorial board takes into account the need to eliminate conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. A reviewer cannot be an author of the manuscript under review, nor the academic supervisor of the author, nor a staff member of the institution or department in which the author works.
Confidentiality
The peer review process is confidential. The editorial board does not disclose any information related to the manuscript (including its receipt, content, review process, reviewers’ comments, or final decision) to anyone except the authors and the reviewers themselves.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted to them are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute confidential information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are prohibited from making copies of the manuscript or sharing it, in full or in part, with third parties.
Review timeline
The review timeline for each individual case is determined by the editorial board, taking into account the need to ensure the most prompt possible publication of the manuscript. The maximum review period is two weeks; however, it may be extended upon the reviewer’s request.
Form of Review
The review is prepared according to standard form.
If the manuscript fails to meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need for revision and provides recommendations to the author for improving the article. The reviewer’s comments and suggestions must be objective and constructive, aimed at enhancing the scientific and methodological quality of the manuscript.
The editorial board communicates the results of the peer review to the author.
The author of the manuscript may express a reasoned disagreement with the review results. The decision on further review is made by the editorial board.
If the author agrees with the reviewer’s comments, they have the right to revise the manuscript and resubmit it.
In the case of an overall negative evaluation of the manuscript (recommendation against publication), the reviewer must provide a substantiated justification for their conclusions.
A manuscript that is not recommended for publication by the reviewer is not accepted for reconsideration. The text of the negative review is sent to the author.