All submitted papers are peer reviewed.
The task of the reviewing is to facilitate the strict selection of author's manuscripts for publication and to formulate specific recommendations for their improvement.
To improve the quality of the reviewing, members of the editorial board and independent experts who submit their conclusions in writing in the prescribed form are involved.
According to editorial policy of the journal, the review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors.
The main purpose of the review procedure is to adhere to the principles of scientific and academic ethics. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, they determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for the elimination of cases of their violation.
The review process is held on the basis of confidentiality when information about the paper (terms, content, stages of review, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers.
THE MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWING RULES
The author submits an article to the editorial board. The manuscript is to meet the requirements of the journal and the guidelines for the articles publication in academic editions of Ukraine.
Manuscripts that do not correspond to the established requirements are not registered and will not be accepted for further consideration. In such a case the authors will be informed about that.
All manuscripts that are submitted to the editorial board are directed to a reviewer or, if necessary, two reviewers who are experts in corresponding subject area. The right to appoint reviewers is assigned to Editor-in-Chief of the journal. He may delegate this right to one of the members of the editorial board. Articles of prominent scholars as well as well as purposely invited authors may be released from peer review.
Both members of the editorial board of the journal and extramural highly skilled specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in the corresponding scientific area (doctors of sciences, professors in the field of the reviewed article) can be engaged as reviewers.
After the article received for the consideration (within 7 days), the Sub-editor evaluates the article in terms of its compliance to all the necessary technical and macrostructural requirements, which are put forward to academic editions of Ukraine. If it is necessary, the Sub-editor cooperates with the author to bring the article in compliance with the established requirements. He is also to assign the code to the article and to send it to Editor-in-Chief for further re-submitting to the appointed reviewers.
As a rule, the reviewer concludes if the article is ready for publishing within 21 days. For creating the proper conditions for objective consideration of the materials and their quality evaluating, the term of reviewing can vary.
The reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of the double-blind reviewing (when neither the author nor the expert knows each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place either by e-mail correspondence via the Sub-editor or Editor-in-Chief of the journal. If the reviewer and the author come to agreement, their interaction can take place in the open mode in order to improve the style and the logics of the research material presentation. According to the reviewer`s consent, the author of the read article may be informed about his personal data.
All articles submitted for the review are checked for the originality of the text and the absence of plagiarism with the help of appropriate software (in particular, the Advego plagiatus service).
After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out the pre-written standardized form with the title of the article and its code. The editorial board informs the author of the results and sends back a scanned copy of the review by e-mail.
If the reviewer indicates the need of making certain corrections, the article is sent back to the author with a proposal either to take into account the comments when preparing the updated version of the article or to refute them reasonably. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer. The latter makes up a decision and issues a substantiated conclusion on the possibility of the publication. The acceptance date of the article publication is the date when the editorial office received the positive conclusion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.
In case the author disagrees with the opinion of the reviewer he has a right to give an argumentative answer to the editorial office. If this be the case the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may refer the article for additional or new review to another expert. The editorial board reserves the right to decline article in case of insolvency or unwillingness of the author to take into account the recommendations and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer the editorial board may submit the article to another expert with the mandatory observance of the principles of anonymity.
The final decision as for the publication of the article is taken by Editor-in-Chief (or by the member of editorial board on his behalf) and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After passing a decision on the admission of the article to the publication the editor secretary will inform the author about it and indicate the expected publication period.
In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication the article enters the editorial-publishing office of the journal and will be published in the order of the existing queue or in some cases (by the decision of Editor-in-Chief) out of turn in the next issue of the journal.
The author of the article is responsible for the violation of copyright and non-compliance with applicable standards in the material of the article. The author and reviewers are responsible for the reliability of the facts and data given, the validity of conclusions and recommendations made, the scientific and practical level of the article.