The peer review process

  1. All the papers submitted to the editorial board of the Journal and corresponding to its thematic and requirements are reviewed.
  2. A paper review is realised in a form of double-blind peer review (neither author nor reviewer knows about each other).
  3. The paper is registered at the editor’s of the Journal with noting of the date of receipt, the title, full name of the author(s) and the place of work.
  4. The executive secretary reports to the authors that the paper was received within 7 days.
  5. The executive secretary determines the relevance of the paper to the journal’s specialization and to the requirements for the design, which are posted on the website of the the Journal. In case of inadequacy the paper is not allowed for further consideration.
  6. The editor-in-chief sends the paper to the reviewing to a member of the editorial board and another specialist, who has the closest specialization to the subject of the paper. All the articles in the issue are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers.
  7. The review period lasts from 4 to 8 weeks from the date of receipt.
  8. The review should cover the following issues:
    - relevance and scientific novelty;
    - the validity and significance of the results;
    - assessment of the author’s personal contribution to the solution of this problem;
    - correspondence of the language, style, composition, logic of representation to the scientific nature of the material;
    - the quality of the design;
    - what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the paper, which corrections and supplements must be made by the author;
    - conclusion about the possibility of publishing of this manuscript in the journal: “recommended”, “recommended after the corrections of shortcomings noted by the reviewer” or “not recommended”.
  9. The reviewer decides on the expediency of the publication, the necessity to revise the manuscript, or the inexpediency of publication. The review must be signed by the reviewer with noting of the position, academic degree and rank.
  10. The reviewers are reported that the manuscripts sent to them are privately owned by the authors and relate to non-disclosure information. Reviewers are prohibited to make copies of the papers for their own needs.
  11. If necessary, the paper is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments of the reviewer. In case of rejection, the editorship sends the author a motivated refusal.
  12. Manuscripts, revised by the author, are repeatedly sent to the same reviewer who made critical remarks, or to another one at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.
  13. Manuscripts, the authors of which have not removed the constructive comments of the reviewer or have not proposed well-reasoned refutation, are not accepted for publication.
  14. The final decision about the possibility and expediency of publication is taken by the editor-in-chief (or, on his/her behalf, a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.
  15. According to the statute about the system of preventing and detecting of academic plagiarism in scientific and educational work of the employees and students of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, before the submission of the Journal for consideration of the academic council of the department, the editorial board checks the adopted for publication papers for academic plagiarism, which is noted in the certificate signed by the editor-inchief. The check is carried out using the Anti-Plagiarist Internet System (the property of Company)