Peer Review Policy. Academic Integrity
Procedure for Reviewing Articles
- The editorial board accepts for consideration scientific articles that correspond to the scope and scientific and technical level of the collection. Articles that do not comply with the core subject area or the publication requirements may be rejected at the initial review stage directly by the Editor-in-Chief.
- The editorial board upholds high international standards of transparency in the peer review process and therefore practices double-blind review: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s personal details. All personal information about the authors is removed from the text of the article in advance.
- Articles submitted to the publication undergo both internal and external review. Internal review is carried out by members of the editorial board. External review is conducted by highly qualified national and international scholars and specialists from other scientific institutions who are leading experts in the relevant field of science and have published scientific works on the subject of the article.
- Submitted articles are sent to two independent experts for review. Reviewers receive the abstract of the article, after which they agree or decline to review the material. In the event of refusal, other reviewers are appointed.
- A reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the reviewed work.
- Persons who may have a conflict of interest are not involved in the review of a particular article.
- After receiving the materials and assessing their scientific level, reviewers complete the "Review Form," in which they indicate their remarks and comments.
- Based on the results of the review, the reviewer provides a recommendation regarding the possibility of publishing the manuscript:
- accept submission – the submission is ready for publication and is accepted without changes;
- revisions required – accepted provided that the author takes into account the specified remarks;
- resubmit for review – revision and repeated review are required;
- submit to another publication – the subject matter is more suitable for another publication;
- decline submission – the submission does not meet the publication’s requirements.
- The review must be signed by the reviewer, indicating their position, academic degree, and academic title.
- The review is sent to the Executive Secretary.
- The Executive Secretary informs the author of the article about the review results by email.
- If the reviewer recommends revision of the article, the Executive Secretary of the collection, in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief, sends the article to the author for revision. The letter includes a list of the reviewer’s remarks, questions, and comments. After revision, the author may resubmit the material, completing all submission procedures again.
- In the event of rejection of the article, the editorial board sends the author a reasoned refusal.
- An article not recommended for publication by the reviewer is not accepted for repeated consideration.
Peer Review Procedure
Stage 1. Preliminary Review (up to 7 days):
- Checking compliance with the journal’s scope
- Plagiarism screening (using iThenticate or Unicheck)
- Checking compliance with formatting requirements
- Decision: send for review or reject
Stage 2. Appointment of Reviewers (2–3 days):
- Selection of 2 independent reviewers
- Sending invitations to reviewers
- Providing reviewers with an anonymized version of the article
Stage 3. Peer Review (1–2 weeks):
The reviewer evaluates:
- Relevance of the topic and scientific novelty
- Consistency between the title and the content
- Quality of the literature review
- Correctness of the methodology
- Reliability of the results
- Validity of the conclusions
- Quality of formatting and language
Stage 4. Decision of the Editorial Board:
- If the reviewers’ opinions differ, a third reviewer is appointed or the editorial board makes the decision
Stage 5. Author Revision (up to 7 days):
- The author receives anonymous reviews
- Prepares a revised version
- Submits a response to the reviewers’ comments (point-by-point response)
Stage 6. Final Decision:
- The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations
Decision-Making on the Publication of Articles
- The final decision regarding the publication of materials is made by the editorial board of the collection.
- The section of the collection to which the article will be assigned is determined by the editorial board and approved by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy.
- After the decision to publish has been made, the Executive Secretary informs the authors of the article accordingly.
- From among the articles that have passed peer review and have been processed, the Executive Secretary forms the table of contents of the next issue of the collection, which is approved by the Editor-in-Chief and recommended for publication by decision of the Academic Council of KNUCA.
- Responsibility for infringement of other persons’ copyright rests with the author of the article.
- The authors of the articles are responsible for the accuracy of facts, proper names, geographical names, quotations, and other information.
- The quality of writing or translation (into Ukrainian or English) is reviewed by the proofreaders of the collection; however, responsibility for the quality of the article rests with the authors of the material. Editorial changes may be made to the article without the author’s consent.
- Materials received from the author are not returned by the editorial board.
Appeal Procedure
- If the author of the article disagrees with the reviewers’ comments, they have the right to send an appeal to the editorial board in the format “reviewers’ comments – author’s response.”
- This document is sent to the reviewers, after which the working group makes a decision on the possibility of publishing the article. The working group may send the article for additional review by another reviewer. The working group reserves the right to reject the article if the author is unable or unwilling to take the reviewer’s comments into account.
- The author of the article is informed separately of any decision made by the working group.
Criteria for Selecting Reviewers
- Holding an academic degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor of Sciences.
- Having publications on the subject matter of the reviewed article.
- Having publications in journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science.
- Absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s).
- No more than one reviewer from the author’s institution.
- Involvement of international reviewers (where possible).
- A reviewer may not have been a co-author of the author within the last 3 years.
Compliance with Academic Integrity Includes:
By authors:
- objective evaluation of the results of their own research;
- presenting in a work that reports original research only their own scientific results;
- compliance with legislation on copyright and related rights;
- providing reliable information about research methods and results, the sources of information used, and their own scientific activity;
- citing sources of information when using ideas, developments, statements, or data obtained by other authors;
- at the authors’ discretion, expressing gratitude to employees, supervisors, scholars, and experts who did not directly participate in writing the article but provided: laboratory analytical work, field research, measurements and observations, financial and organizational support, material and technical resources for the research; or offered preliminary expert assessment or useful advice regarding the content of the article, etc.
By reviewers:
- objective evaluation of the results;
- an impartial, as far as possible objective, assessment of the article submitted for review;
- a self-critical attitude toward their own competence regarding the issues considered in the article and refusal to evaluate the article if the work lies outside the reviewer’s field of professional competence;
- providing not only remarks concerning the inadmissibility of certain provisions and/or the general idea of the article, but also well-grounded explanations of such decisions and advice on improving the content (additions, reductions) and correcting errors.
By members of the editorial board:
- checking all submitted articles for plagiarism;
- if one positive and one negative review are received, the editorial board is obliged to send the article to a third reviewer for review;
- making only collegial decisions (at a meeting of the editorial board) regarding the final rejection of an article or the introduction of sanctions against violators of academic integrity.
The Following Are Considered Violations of Academic Integrity:
- academic plagiarism and self-plagiarism. If the permissible level of academic plagiarism is exceeded (more than 15%) and self-plagiarism (more than 20%), the author will be asked to revise the article or, by a collegial decision of the editorial board, the article may be rejected;
- fabrication – inventing data or facts used in scientific research;
- falsification – deliberate alteration or modification of existing data relating to scientific research;
- deception – providing knowingly false information regarding one’s own scientific activity or the organization of the educational process;
- biased evaluation – knowingly biased evaluation of manuscripts;
- creating obstacles not provided for by the conditions and/or procedures for manuscript evaluation;
- influencing the manuscript evaluation process in any form.
