Peer Review and Publishing Ethics

General terms

All articles submitted to the Editorial Board, except for reviews and information reports, undergo peer review. The aim of peer review is to ensure rigorous selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the article content, determining its compliance with the journal requirements and providing a comprehensive analysis of the article’s advantages and disadvantages. Only articles that have scientific value and help to solve topical problems and tasks are accepted for publication.

Independent experts are engaged in the review process to improve the review quality and provide written feedback. According to the journal’s editorial policy, in most cases, the review is anonymous for both reviewers and authors. The primary aim of peer review is to eliminate cases of poor-quality research practice and to ensure that the interests of authors, readers, the Editorial Board, reviewers and the institution where the research is conducted are consistent and maintained. Reviewers assess the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical and scientific value. Besides, reviewers determine compliance of the article with the publishing ethics and provide recommendations on eliminating violations.

Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted are the intellectual property of authors and this information is not for public use. Reviewers are not allowed to make a copy of the article submitted for review or use knowledge of the article content before its publication. Reviewing takes place on a confidential basis, so information about the article (receipt date, content, stages and reviewing peculiarities, comments of reviewers and final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone but authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or a statement concerning unreliability or falsification of the article material. By consent (wish) of authors and reviewers, the comments of reviewers may be published with the article. In any case, the author of the peer-reviewed article is allowed to read the text of the review, in particular, if he/she does not agree with the reviewer’s conclusions.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

Basic ethical principles that reviewers should follow:

— if the reviewer is not sure that his/her qualification corresponds to the level and direction of the article, he/she should immediately refuse to review it;

— the reviewer aim is to objectively assess the quality of the submitted article and to determine its degree of compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards;

— during reviewing particularistic interests of individuals should be smoothed and the intellectual independence of authors should be respected;

— to ensure the right of each author to the intellectual property, the reviewer is forbidden to use the received arguments and conclusions of the author without permission of the latter;

— if there is a conflict of interest in the research results with the personal research of the reviewer, or in case of professional or personal relations of the reviewer with the author, which may influence the reviewer’s judgment, he/she should return the article indicating the conflict of interest;

— a priority rule is a confidentiality of the peer-reviewed article according to which the reviewer is forbidden to disclose information of the article or discuss the unpublished conclusions and recommendations of authors with other colleagues (exception is when the reviewer needs some specific advice; for this purpose, the permission of the Editorial Board is required);

— the seriousness of the accusation of plagiarism requires the reviewer to adequately and reasonably justify his or her comments. Any allegation of plagiarism or improper citation should be accompanied by a corresponding reference (the reviewer’s findings should not be defamatory or discreditable to the author without serious grounds);

— if the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of the data, he/she must contact the Editorial Board with a request for collective review of the author’s article;

— since the reviewer should note any instances of improper citation by authors of research of other scholars working in the field of the peer-reviewed article, comments regarding the citation of the reviewer’s research are identified as biased;

— maintaining a regular periodical for publication of the scientific journal “Visnik…” requires a reviewer of high self-discipline, which is revealed through timely submission of the article review and a respectful attitude to authors of the article (in case of discourtesy towards authors or systematic reviews of low quality or violation of reviewing terms, the relationship with this reviewer ends);

— prohibiting the reviewer from using or disclosing unpublished information or the author’s reasoning is not considered to be inconsistent with the ethical standards to end some of the reviewer’s research if it does not appear to be meaningful.

Manuscripts reviewing procedure

1. The author submits to the Editorial Board an article that complies with the policy requirements of “Visnik…” and the guidelines for preparing articles and research papers for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements are not registered and are not reviewed as reported to their authors.

2. All the manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board are sent to one or, if necessary, to two reviewers according to the research profile. The “Visnik…” Editor-in-Chief appoints reviewers. By the decision of the Editor-in-Chief (under certain circumstances) the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the Editorial Board. In some cases, the issue of appointing reviewers is solved at the meeting of the Editorial Board. According to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, some articles of eminent scholars, as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.

3. Both members of the Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Visnik…” and third-party highly qualified specialists who possess deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific research direction, generally, Doctors of Science, Professors, may be invited for reviewing articles.

4. After receiving the article for review (within 7 days) the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials based on the correspondence of the author’s research direction and lack of any conflict of interest. In case of any conflict of interest, the reviewer should refuse to review and inform the Editorial Board about this decision. The Board should decide on the appointment of the other reviewer.

5. The reviewer concludes whether the article can be published, generally, within 21 days. Review time frames may vary in some cases providing the most objective assessment of the quality of the material submitted.

6. Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind reviewing (when neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewer takes place either by e-mail (Annex 2) or with the help of the executive editor of “Visnik…”. In case of rejection of the principles of double-blind reviewing, the name of the reviewer may be indicated at the end of the published article. The Editorial Board must ensure that at least three articles in each issue are double-blind peer-reviewed.

7. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in a standardized form (Annex 1), which contains the final recommendations. The editorial staff informs the author of the reviewing results by e-mail.

8. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain amendments to the article, it is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments to prepare the updated version of the article or to substantiate them. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which contains all the comments and explains all the changes that have been made to the article. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer for a final decision and preparation of a reasoned opinion on the publication possibility. The date on which the article is accepted for publication is the date of receipt of the positive answer of the reviewer by the Editorial Board (or the decision of the Editorial Board) regarding the propriety and possibility of publishing the article.

9. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author of the article has the right to submit a reasoned answer to the Editorial Board. In this case, the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the Editorial Board. The latter may send the article for an additional or new review to the other reviewer. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article in case of the author’s inability or unwillingness to consider the recommendations and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the Editorial Board may submit the article to the other reviewer with the obligation to correspond to the principles of double-blind reviewing.

10. The final decision on the possibility and propriety of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his/her behalf – by a member of the Editorial Board), and if necessary – by the meeting of the Editorial Board. After the decision allowing the article to be published, the executive secretary informs the author and specifies the expected publication date.

11. In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publishing the article, it is submitted to the editorial portfolio of the journal for its publication by turn and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn in the upcoming issue of the journal).

12. The final decision on the journal content is fixed by the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council of V.Dahl EUNU with a corresponding mark on the second page of the journal.

13. The article approved for publication shall be submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the article’s content are made by a technical editor without the author’s agreement. In case of necessity or by wish of the author, the manuscript in the form of an article layout is returned to the author for approval.

14. The author of the article is responsible for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the article materials. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of facts and data provided, the validity of conclusions and recommendations made, and the scientific and practical level of the article.