Review procedure
The journal "Bulletin of Uman National University" adheres to double-blind (anonymous) (double-anonymized) peer review:
- reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors;
- the authors do not know the reviewer's personal data.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements listed in the "Requirements for drafting articles" section. Scientific articles formatted in accordance with the Article Format Requirements section, which have passed the initial editorial control and copyright check, are allowed to proceed to the review stage.
The primary review of a scientific article is conducted by the editor-in-chief. In cases where the editor-in-chief has a personal interest in the publication (is the author, co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the review is conducted by another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest. The materials submitted must correspond to the journal's topic. If the journal's publication requirements are met, the article is transferred to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it.
An anonymous article is sent by email:
- to the member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
- two external independent experts (reviewers).
External review involves Ukrainian and foreign scientists with a scientific degree who specialize in the same scientific field in which the article is submitted. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. An anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. Reviewers cannot have a conflict of interest with the author of the article.
Selection of reviewers. The editorial board tries to constantly update the database of potential reviewers and add new scientists who are competent in the issues of the publication. The editorial board of the journal believes that a successful selection of reviewers is very important for making the right decision about the article. When choosing a reviewer, the editor-in-chief takes into account many factors: the scientific status and experience of the scientist, his reputation, his own previous experience of cooperation with him. Thus, the editorial board tries not to contact people who work slowly, inattentively, do not substantiate their conclusions, are too soft or too strict.
In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues:
- correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title;
- the relevance and novelty of the scientific problem considered in the article;
- justification of the practical significance of the research conducted;
- value for a wide range of readers.
Reviewers fill out standard review forms and choose one of the options:
- Recommend an article for publication.
- Recommend the article for publication after minor revisions (see Comments for recommendations).
- Recommend the article for publication after significant revisions and re-review (see Comments for recommendations).
- Not recommended (significant rework required. Author may resubmit revised material).
- Reject (material has fundamental flaws; do not allow resubmission).
- Reject (the topic of the material does not match the journal's profile).
In their recommendations for the article, the reviewers provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for the decision to revise the manuscript. Reviews signed by the reviewers with a regular or electronic signature are stored by the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article is published.
In the event that one reviewer recommends publication (with or without revisions) and the other does not recommend/refuses, the article is sent to the author(s) based on the results of a positive review and, if necessary, corrections in accordance with the submitted review. The final decision on such an article is made by the editor-in-chief.
The editorial board’s decision is sent to the authors. Articles that are subject to revision are sent together with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, during which the reviewers may request additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected. If the author refuses to revise the materials, the article will not be accepted for publication.
The Editor-in-Chief analyzes the reviews of the reviewers and, based on them, makes a final decision on publication, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the requirements of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in making decisions on articles that he himself authored or has a conflict of interest in a certain order. All such articles undergo independent review without the participation of the editor or his research group. The final decision on these articles is made by another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest.
Manuscripts of editorial board members are processed in the same way as all other manuscripts.
Persons with a conflict of interest do not participate in reviewing and making a decision on their manuscripts.
Processing is carried out by a separate editor or group of editors who are not associated with this manuscript.
Typical peer review period 2–4 weeks
Average time to first decision 4–8 weeks
