Peer review process

Peer review process

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the publication go through the review procedure. The main goal of peer review is to exclude cases of poor scientific research practice. The reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. Only those articles that have scientific value in accordance with the profile of the publication are accepted for publication.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

  • The task of reviewing is to facilitate the strict selection of author's works for publication and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement.
  • The review is carried out in a confidential format and has a double anonymous nature (double blind review), in which:

- the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author/authors;
- the author/authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

  • Independent experts are involved in the review process. According to the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine No. 32 of 15.01.2018, independent peer review is carried out by scientists who are engaged in research in the field of the relevant specialty and have in the last three years at least one publication in publications included in the List of specialized scientific publications of Ukraine or foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Collection and / or Scopus, or have monographs or sections of monographs, issued by international publishing houses that belong to categories "A", "B" or "C" according to the classification of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
  • Scientific reviewers provide their opinion in writing according to the template approved by the editorial board.
  • The review process can take 6 to 12 weeks.
  • The final decision on the acceptance of manuscripts for publication is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the results of the scientific review, the scientific significance and relevance of the materials submitted for publication.

PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

  • Manuscripts submitted to the editors undergo a preliminary review stage regarding compliance with the topic of the scientific publication and the submission rules presented on the website in the section "Autor Guidelines".
  • The preliminary selection stage of review is carried out by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief. At this stage:

- the general compliance of the submitted manuscript with the topic and requirements of the scientific publication is evaluated;
- compliance of the manuscript with research and ethical standards is considered;
- is checked for plagiarism and the use of AI.

  • According to the conclusions made, the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief determines further actions:

- submit the manuscript for review by scientific reviewers;
- return the manuscript to the authors to eliminate identified inconsistencies with the submission rules; 
- reject the manuscript.

  • After the editor receives the manuscript, which was returned to the author for revision, it is re-evaluated by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief to determine the extent to which the author has eliminated the inconsistencies identified at the previous stage.

  • Manuscripts that have successfully passed the preliminary evaluation are sent to two (or more - at the discretion of the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief) scientific reviewers for the double-blind review procedure.
  • Preliminary evaluation of the manuscript lasts from 2 to 3 weeks.

STAGE OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEW

Manuscripts that have successfully passed the preliminary review stage are subject to scientific review.

Reviewer selection criteria:

- having a scientific degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor of Science;
- availability of publications on the topic of the reviewed article;
- availability of publications in publications indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
- no conflict of interest with the author(s);
- involvement of international reviewers (if possible);
- the reviewer cannot be a co-author of the author within the last 3 years. 

Before appointing scientific reviewers, the editor-in-chief or deputy scientific editor checks the absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are advised that manuscripts submitted to them are the private property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article for their own use. Reviewers should not submit any part of the manuscript to others for review without the permission of the Editorial Board. Reviewers do not have the right to use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication for their own benefit. The manuscript is the private property of the author(s) and belongs to nondisclosure information. Disclosure is possible only in case of a claim of unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases non-disclosure is mandatory.

In the case of discovering the reasons for which the reviewer cannot conduct a scientific review, he has the right to refuse the review, justifying the reason in writing within three days after receiving the manuscript for review. The message is sent by e-mail in response to the editorial letter.

Reviewers who accept a review invitation are given up to 8 weeks to write a review. An extension may be granted upon request.

Reviewers must write a scientific review on a template form approved by the editorial board.

The reviewer can provide recommendations to the author and the editorial board to improve the manuscript. The reviewer's comments and suggestions must be objective and substantial, aimed at improving the scientific and educational level of the manuscript.

For a general negative assessment of the manuscript, the reviewer must provide convincing justifications for his conclusion.

The expert assessment of the quality of the manuscript, reflected in the review, should contain the following information:

  • compliance of the content of the publication with its title;
  • general analysis of the level of scientific content of the manuscript, novelty, terminology and structure of the publication, the relevance of the given topic and the significance of the presented problem;
  • authenticity of the stated facts; completeness of processing the material;
  • evaluation of the manuscript in accordance with the existing requirements for the design of materials; availability of links to the given bibliographic list and other sources of information;
  • correlation of the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts;
  • clarity of presentation and reasoning of conclusions; reliability and validity of the final conclusions, correlated with the goals and objectives of the research;
  • assessment of the personal contribution of the author of the publication to the solution of the investigated problem;
  • detection of shortcomings, inaccuracies and errors made by the author of the manuscript.

The review should contain one of the recommendations:

- publication of the manuscript without changes;
- publication of the manuscript with minor changes;
- additional scientific review after making significant changes;
- manuscript rejection.

The editors have the right to send the publication either for additional review or for revision to the author with subsequent repeated review, or to reject it if negative reviews are received.

REVISION

The editor-in-chief evaluates the reviewers' recommendations and decides whether to accept or reject the manuscript.

If the manuscript is positively evaluated by the scientific reviewers and the materials correspond to the topic of the journal, the author is notified of the acceptance of his materials for publication.

In the case of a recommendation to make minor changes, authors are sent a corresponding message with a proposal to make changes within a specified period (usually 2-3 weeks). After receiving the revised manuscript by the author(s), it is accepted for publication.

If the author(s) have been advised of substantial revisions, they will be sent an email containing the relevant recommendations and a deadline to return the revised manuscript (usually 4 weeks). The revised manuscript is sent for re-review to the same reviewers who conducted its first scientific review. The reviewers take into account the degree of refinement of the material and the comments of the authors (if available), why it is impossible or impractical to do so, and recommend or not recommend the article for publication, providing an explanation and justification of their decision.

When reviewing a revision of a manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide a re-report within 4 weeks. Extensions can also be granted upon request.

A maximum of two rounds of core revision per manuscript is usually granted.

Reviews signed by the reviewer with a regular or digital electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for three years.

EDITOR'S DECISION

The final decision on acceptance for publication is made by the editor-in-chief on the basis of expert reviews and in accordance with the scientific significance and relevance of the materials provided by the author.

The decision to accept manuscripts can be made by the Editor-in-Chief after review, if at least two review reports have been received.

The author(s) are notified of the decision by e-mail within 3 working days after the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

The editors of the journal do not keep manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication.

Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Manuscripts that have received a negative result from a reviewer are not published and are not returned to the author.

Copyright appeals

Authors can appeal the rejection of publication. The procedure for such an appeal is described in the paragraph "Procedure for Reviewing Complaints Regarding Violations of Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics" in the Ethics and Policy section of the journal.