Reviewing procedure

• The peer-review procedure is anonymous for both reviewers and authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind peer review).
• Before the review process begins, each manuscript is checked for plagiarism. Only after a positive plagiarism screening result is the manuscript forwarded for peer review.
• Only scientific articles formatted in accordance with the journal’s requirements are accepted for review, as verified during the initial editorial screening. If deficiencies are identified at this stage, the manuscript may be returned to the author with the note “Technical requirements not met.”
• All reviewers are required to adhere to ethical standards in scientific publishing and must ensure objectivity and impartiality.
• The review must address the following aspects:
  • correspondence between the content of the article and its title;
  • compliance with the journal’s thematic scope;
  • relevance of the research topic and presence of novelty elements;
  • appropriateness of publication considering its relevance to a broad readership;
  • clarity of the research aim formulation;
  • compliance with the scientific standards of the journal;
  • presence of well-grounded conclusions and directions for further research;
  • identified shortcomings (if any), including required corrections or additions.
• If the above requirements are met, the manuscript is forwarded to the managing editor.
• External reviewers include Ukrainian and international Doctors of Sciences who have relevant publications in the subject area of the manuscript. The editorial office sends such experts a request letter for peer review, together with a coded manuscript and a standard review form. The external reviewer is selected randomly, taking into account current workload and subject to their consent.
• A member of the editorial board and the external reviewer complete the standard review form and, depending on the outcome, provide one of the following recommendations: “recommended for publication,” “recommended for revision,” or “not recommended for publication.”
• In case of rejection or need for revision, the reviewer/editorial board member must provide a written and reasoned explanation of the decision.
• The review and recommendation process is completed within two weeks from the date of manuscript receipt.
• Reviewer recommendations are sent via email to the managing editor.
• The final decision regarding the manuscript is made at the editorial meeting held once a month, attended by the Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor. The decision is based on the received peer reviews.
• Further processing of manuscripts recommended for publication is carried out by the editorial staff in accordance with the journal’s production workflow.
• The editorial decision is communicated to the author(s). Manuscripts requiring revision are returned together with the review report containing specific recommendations. Reviewer anonymity is guaranteed by the journal.
• Revised manuscripts are subject to a second round of peer review. In case of a repeated negative review, the manuscript is rejected and not considered further.
• The editorial office does not engage in discussions with authors of rejected manuscripts.
• Reviews and recommendations for each manuscript are stored electronically in the editorial office for three years from the publication date of the issue in which the article appears.