Review Policy
Manuscripts undergo independent peer review 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 publication of the article, as well as on the need for its revision.
The goal of article review 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, that is, not be an employee of the same organization/institution as the author of the article.
All reviewers must adhere to the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Ethics in Publications (CommitteeonPublicationEthics) 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 it is appropriate to publish the article taking into account existing scientific publications on this topic;
Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the following guidelines are accepted for review: 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 the external review. The manuscript undergoes double-blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.
Reviewers' recommendations are sent by email to the editor.
The final decision on the article is made at a quarterly meeting of the editorial board 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 reviewers believe are difficult for readers to understand, reviewers may 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 to improve your article!
The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles.
Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored by the editorial office 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 editorial decision-making process is not published.
This procedure ensures the objectivity of the review process, provided that due confidentiality is maintained and there is no conflict of interest.
For each submitted paper, two reviewers are assigned (note that a reviewer does not have the ability to recommend a co-reviewer ), who evaluate the manuscript and supporting materials (if available) 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:
- having the necessary experience to assess the quality of work;
- independence from the author( s ) of the article;
- absence of conflict of interest (i.e. does not work at the same institution, has no joint publications with the authors within the last five years, has no financial or professional interests in the work, is not a family member, etc.).
In addition, the priority of the reviewer selection is carried out taking into account the following criteria:
- the quality of previous reviews;
- activity in the scientific community;
- number of publications in the field of one's own scientific competence.
If 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 your compliance with the above principles. The journal expects that, by accepting the offer for review, the potential reviewer confirms that there is sufficient time to conduct a quality review and a relevant review within the deadline allocated by the editorial office (up to 14 days).
If the reviewer does not have time to submit the review within the specified deadline, the editorial board asks to notify the editor-in-chief in advance.
Each reviewer is encouraged to consult the following resources:
- What to consider when you are asked to review a manuscript – COPE guidelines to help you decide whether to participate in the review process;
- COPE Guidelines for Reviewers – provide basic principles and standards that reviewers should follow during the review process;
- WebofScienceAcademy – 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 work without any personal bias;
- have relevant experience to assess the quality of work;
- not have a conflict of interest with the author or editor, and if there is one, notify the editorial office of the Collection about it;
- to comply with the rules of ethics for the publication of the Collection and to notify the editor of the Collection of any violations;
- to maintain the confidentiality of information at any stage of the editorial process and not to disclose it without obtaining consent from the editor of the Collection;
- not to use for personal purposes any part of the material of the work that is under review and is unpublished;
- Be available for questions related to your review and provide necessary clarifications as needed;
- behave professionally and use respectful language in correspondence or communication.
Additional information
The reviewer is solely responsible for the content of the review. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools should not be used in preparing the review, and it is prohibited to upload the entire article or any part of it to any AI tool or other service that may access the material.
The reviewer's responsibility does not include 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 paper loses its logical coherence due to the lack of analysis, the reviewer should explain what additional expert assessments or data could correct such shortcomings.