Manuscripts are independently reviewed by leading experts. Based on the results of the review, presented in the established form (review template), the editorial board makes a decision on the appropriateness and timing of the article's publication, as well as on the need for its revision.
The goal of reviewing articles is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the journal through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts.
The reviewer must be external to the author of the article, i.e. not be an employee of the same organization/institution as the author of the article.
All reviewers must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and unbiased.
The review addresses the following issues:
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the thematic areas of the journal;
- whether the content of the article has a certain novelty;
- whether the publication of the article is appropriate, taking into account the scientific publications already available on this topic.
Scientific articles are accepted for review, prepared in accordance with REQUIREMENTS
In case of any comments at the stage of the initial control of the editorial board, the article may be returned to the author. After the editors' decision, the submitted manuscripts are sent to at least two external experts working in the relevant field. Ukrainian and foreign doctors of science who have scientific works on the issues stated in the article are involved in external review. The manuscript undergoes double-blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.
The reviewers' recommendations are sent by e-mail to the editor.
The final decision on the article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, which is held once a quarter and chaired by the editor-in-chief. The decision is made taking into account the reviews received after the "blind review" procedure.
Further work with the article accepted for publication is carried out by the editorial staff in accordance with the technological process of preparing the journal issue.
During the review process, the manuscript should become:
- More reliable. Reviewers can point out gaps in the author's work that require more detailed explanation or additional experiments.
- More accessible to a wider audience. If there are aspects of the work that, in the opinion of the reviewers, are difficult for readers to understand, the reviewers can ask for corrections.
- More useful. Reviewers consider the submitted research for relevance and importance within their own subject area.
Reviewing is an integral part of scientific publication, confirming the high quality of scientific articles. Reviewers are experts who invest their time in improving your article!
The editorial board does not enter into discussions with the authors of rejected articles.
Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored by the editorial board for 2 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article is published.
Guidelines for Reviewers
The journal uses a double anonymous review procedure (according to the taxonomy), according to which:
- reviewers and authors are not provided with information that allows them to identify each other, but which is available to the editor who makes the decision;
- reviewers interact with the editor-in-chief;
- information about the review process or the process of making editorial decisions is not published.
This procedure ensures the objectivity of the review process, provided that due confidentiality is observed and there is no conflict of interest.
For each submitted work, two reviewers are assigned (note that the reviewer does not have the opportunity to recommend a co-reviewer), who evaluate the manuscript and accompanying materials (if any) according to a standardized review template independently of each other.
How to become a reviewer
Reviewers can be scientists who have sufficient experience and appropriate competence in the issues studied in the journal and who have the ability to prepare reviews.
The selection of scientists for reviewing articles is carried out by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the following principles:
- the presence of the necessary experience to assess the quality of the work;
- independence in relation to the author(s) of the article;
- absence of a conflict of interest (i.e. does not work at the same institution, has no joint publications with the authors over the past five years, has no financial or professional interests in the work, is not a family member, etc.).
In addition, the priority of selecting a reviewer is carried out taking into account the following criteria:
- quality of previous reviews;
- activity in the scientific community;
- number of publications in the field of one's own scientific competence.
If a person is selected as a reviewer, a letter with relevant information is sent to the person. Before accepting the offer for review, it is necessary to check their compliance with the above principles. The journal expects that, by accepting the offer of review, the potential reviewer confirms that there is sufficient time to conduct a quality review and a corresponding review within the deadline set by the editorial board (up to 14 days).
If the reviewer does not have time to provide a review within the specified deadline, the editorial board asks to notify the editor-in-chief in advance.
Each reviewer is encouraged to review the following resources:
- What to Consider When Asked to Review a Manuscript – COPE Guidelines to assist in making a decision about whether to participate in the review process;
- COPE Guidelines for Reviewers – provide basic principles and standards that reviewers should follow during the review process;
- Web of Science Academy – training courses focused on maintaining research integrity and providing the skills needed to write reviews.
Reviewer responsibilities
- provide objective and constructive feedback within the allotted time (up to 14 days);
- evaluate the work without any personal bias;
- have relevant experience to assess the quality of the work;
- do not have a conflict of interest with the author or editor, and if there is one, notify the editorial office of the Collection;
- adhere to the rules of ethics of publication of the Collection and notify the editor of the Collection of any violations found;
- maintain confidentiality of information at any stage of the editorial process and do not disclose it without obtaining consent from the editor of the Collection;
- do not use for your own purposes any part of the material of the work that is under review and is unpublished;
- be available if questions arise related to your review, and provide the necessary clarifying information if necessary;
- behave professionally and use respectful form in correspondence or communication.
Additional information
The reviewer is fully responsible for the content of the review. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools should not be used when preparing the review, and it is also prohibited to upload the entire article or any part of it to any AI tool or other service that can access the material.
The reviewer is not responsible for checking the grammar of the author's work. However, if the content of the work is lost due to grammatical or other errors, the editor-in-chief must be informed.
If the work loses logical connection due to the lack of analysis, the reviewer must explain what additional expert assessments or data could correct such shortcomings.