Peer Review
The journal employs a single-blind peer review model, under which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. The primary purpose of peer review is to assist the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and to provide authors with the opportunity to improve their manuscripts.Reviewers conduct impartial and critical evaluations of submitted materials in accordance with the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which has developed guidelines for reviewers to ensure compliance with ethical standards. Their role is to objectively identify the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript, assess its scientific quality, and treat newly presented research findings with due care to avoid harm to the author’s reputation or career.
The peer review process is coordinated by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers are selected from members of the Editorial Board, as well as leading researchers from scientific institutions and higher education establishments in Ukraine and other countries, in accordance with the journal’s scope. Reviewers must possess relevant subject-matter expertise. Where possible, they should not be affiliated with the authors’ institutions or have recent joint publications with the authors.
Within one month, a review report containing comments and recommendations for revision is provided to the author. If the author fails to respond to the reviewer’s comments within one month, the manuscript may be withdrawn from consideration by decision of the Editorial Board.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must avoid conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, or sources of funding. If such conflicts exist, they must immediately inform the journal’s editorial office.Reviewers are required to provide timely, written, well-reasoned, and unbiased evaluations of the scientific significance and value of the manuscript. The review should be submitted within one month of receiving the material, unless another deadline has been agreed upon with the editorial office.
If reviewers identify potential ethical violations (including plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, or data falsification), they must notify the editorial board. They should also identify missing references to relevant publications and report any substantial similarity to previously published or concurrently submitted works. If reviewers become aware of parallel submission of the manuscript to another journal, they must inform the editorial office.
Reviews must be objective and professionally formulated; personal remarks about the author are unacceptable. All conclusions must be clearly substantiated.
Materials received for review are confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from using unpublished information or ideas without the authors’ written consent. All information contained in the manuscript must not be disclosed or used for personal benefit.
Review Outcomes
Each review must contain one of the following recommendations:- The article is recommended for publication without revision.
- The article may be published after minor revisions.
- Substantial revision is required.
- The article is not recommended for publication.
The editorial decision to reject a manuscript is final.
No correspondence is conducted with authors of rejected submissions.