The Editorial Board of "The Journal of V.N.Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series History" adheres to international standards of publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Decisions regarding the consideration, peer review, and subsequent publication of a manuscript are made by the Editorial Board, which bears collective responsibility for the materials published in the Journal.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board during its meetings. The decision on whether a manuscript may be published is based on anonymous peer review and plagiarism checks.

The Journal follows a double-blind peer review policy. Manuscripts are reviewed by Editorial Board members who are specialists in the relevant subject area, and, when necessary, by external researchers whose scientific interests align with the topic of the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Secretary may provide technical comments on the reviews.

Manuscript evaluation includes verification of the accuracy and scientific significance of the presented information, its compliance with current legal standards, and other relevant criteria.

The typical review period is one to three months.

In certain cases, the Editorial Board may override reviewers’ recommendations if there are substantial reasons. If reviewer assessments for a manuscript diverge, the Editorial Board makes a special decision: to accept or reject the article, or to appoint additional reviewers. Rejected manuscripts are not reconsidered. The Editorial Board does not discuss rejection decisions with authors.

Reviewer Guidelines

A review must include the following elements:

1. Reviewer Information: Full name, academic degree, academic title, position, and email address.

2. Short answers to the following questions:

• General impression of the work?
• Originality and argumentation?
• Relevance of the topic?
• Appeal of the work to readers?
• Adequacy of the literature and sources used?

3. Yes/No answers to the following questions:

• Does the work demonstrate scientific novelty?
• Does the title correspond to the content?
• Does the main text align with the research objectives?
• Are the stated tasks significant from a cognitive perspective?
• Does the author(s) cite current international literature?
• Is the composition clear and logical?
• Are language and style correct?
• Does the abstract reflect the main thesis of the article?

4. Detailed responses with explanations:

• How clearly is the research aim formulated?
• Has the research aim been fully achieved?
• How well does the methodology correspond to the objectives?
• Relation of the work to the current state of research?
• Internal logic and persuasiveness of the arguments?
• Compliance of the article’s formatting with the Journal’s technical requirements?
• Comments on style and additional remarks.
• Summary (brief evaluation of the manuscript).

5. Publication recommendation:

• Recommended for publication without changes.
• Recommended for publication after minor revisions.
• Recommended for publication after major revisions.
• Recommended for substantial revision and resubmission for review.
• Recommended for complete rejection.

6. Date of review preparation.