The editorial board accepts typescripts of scientific works that have not been published before, formatted in accordance with the journal's requirements, for consideration. Articles can be prepared both individually and in co-authorship (two or three co-authors).

Within a week from the deadline, the texts of the articles are submitted for review. Each article undergoes double-blind review: the text of the article is submitted to two different reviewers without indicating the author's surname. Experts from among the members of the editorial board, scientists of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, as well as authors whose articles have been published in our newsletter before, are involved in the review. The review process takes from four to six weeks. The editorial board's reviews are not published or transferred to third parties without the consent of the author of the article. Copies of the reviews are provided upon request exclusively to the author (authors) of the article.

If the reviewers' comments can be quickly and easily resolved, the article is accepted for publication in its entirety and sent to the author(s) for short-term revision. In the case of significant comments, the article is rejected and returned to the author(s) with the comments. A previously rejected article is accepted for reconsideration only in subsequent issues and only if the comments given in the reviews have been thoroughly revised and corrected.

Review form

Title of the text submitted for review:

……………………………………………………………………………………

Questionnaire

1. Is the proposed work important for the study of this research subject?
2. How accurate is the title of the article reflecting its content?
3. Is the composition of the text clear and logical?
4. Does the style of material presentation meet the criteria of scientific publication?
5. How does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
6. Is the historiographical and source base of the article complete enough?

Narrative part

1. Are the aim and objectives clearly stated in the article?
2. Do the conclusions correspond to the objectives?
3. Remarks on the content of the article.
4. Remarks on the style of the article.
5. Other remarks.
6. Other recommendations for publication and tips for the author.
7. Brief general assessment of the text.

General recommendation for publication:

• print in its current form;
• print after changes are made;
• print after substantial revision;
• do not recommend to print (in case of choosing this option, the reasons for rejection of the article must be argued in the narrative part).