For Reviewer
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF ARTICLES,
submitted for publication in the publication “Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Paths of Development”
In accordance with the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 standard, our publication uses the Double-anonymized peer review model:
In order to comply with the principles of academic integrity and ethical norms accepted by the international scientific community, a mandatory peer review procedure is carried out for all articles submitted to the editorial office of the publication “Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Paths of Development”.
The task of review is to facilitate the selection of author manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the journal requirements, and provides for a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article materials.
The following forms of article review are used:
Pre-check: Checking for compliance with the profile, design requirements and plagiarism.
– external (review of article manuscripts by a doctor or candidate of sciences, who is a specialist in the relevant field). (A model is sent to the reviewer, whose name is indicated in a specific collection, for the purpose of its detailed review and the possibility of recommending for publication. In this case, the reviewers are well-known scientists with experience in similar work);
– internal (review of article manuscripts by members of the editorial board):
1. The following issues should be covered in the external review:
the correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title;
the correspondence of the article to modern achievements in the specified field;
the accessibility of the article to the readers for whom it is intended, in terms of language, style, arrangement of the material, etc.;
the expediency of publishing the article taking into account previously published literature on this issue;
positive aspects, as well as shortcomings of the article; what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
conclusion on the possibility of publishing this manuscript in the journal.
2. External reviews are certified in the manner established by the institution where the reviewer works. The review must be signed by the reviewer with a transcript of the position, academic degree and academic title.
3. Internal review is performed by members of the editorial board of the journal in accordance with the protocols “Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Development Paths”.
The journal uses double-blind review (both do not know about each other).
In addition to the members of the editorial board, other domestic and foreign highly qualified specialists (mostly doctors of sciences, professors) who have thorough knowledge, relevant competence, and experience in a specific scientific field may be invited to review articles.
4. Criteria for selection and replacement of reviewers
Selection criteria: Reviewers may be specialists who have a scientific degree (candidate/doctor of sciences, PhD), publications in publications of categories "A" or "B" for the last 3 years on the topic of the manuscript.
Replacement of a reviewer: A reviewer is subject to mandatory replacement in the event of:
Identification of a conflict of interest (administrative or personal dependence).
Violation of deadlines (more than 60 days without good reason).
Providing an unsubstantiated or superficial conclusion.
Third reviewer: Appointed in case of diametrically opposed conclusions of the first two experts (“Arbitration review”).
5. Decision-making
The editorial decision is based solely on the content of the reviews. The editor can:
Accept: accept without changes.
Minor Revision: accept after minor revision.
Major Revision: send for a second round of review after significant revision.
Reject: reject (based on two negative reviews).
Decision-making: Based on at least two positive reviews.
Each English-language annotation (in the collection there are 2 of them: identical to the Ukrainian one and expanded – in the appropriate form) of the articles of the collection is checked by a philologist, whose surname is also indicated in the source data of the collection and they are edited if necessary.
One of the requirements for articles is their plagiarism check, as stated in the requirements published on the website of the department where the specified publication is printed.
4. The review terms in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article, but cannot exceed two weeks.
5. The reviewer comments on the quality of the manuscript on such points as:
scientific novelty,
the validity of the results,
the significance of the results,
clarity of presentation,
the quality of design;
6. In accordance with these points, decisions are made on the appropriateness of publication, whether the manuscript needs to be revised or whether its publication is inappropriate.
7. In the event of rejection of the article from publication, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal.
8. The final decision on the appropriateness of publication (as well as on the publication of the collection as a whole) is made only by the editorial board of the publication. Only the collection is approved for publication by the Academic Council of the University and the Academic Council of the Institute of Culturology of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine.
Since this is a joint publishing project approved by the relevant decision of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, which is also indicated in the source data of each collection.
9. The originals of the reviews are stored in the editorial office of the scientific journal “Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Development Paths” for a certain period of time and after its publication.
Ethical principles
Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential, therefore the reviewer does not discuss the manuscript or even mention its existence in a conversation with third parties. In the exceptional case when the reviewer wants to consult with a colleague on a particular issue regarding the manuscript, he informs the editor about this, and also informs him that the people he addresses are informed about the confidentiality of the information they are working with.
Reviewers should not use the information received for personal gain.
Review of a scientific article submitted for publication in the collection "Ukrainian Culture: Past, Present, Development Paths"
If a reviewer does not recommend an article for publication, the review must state the reasons for this decision.
