Review Form

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the collection "Ukrainian Biographistics = Biographistica Ukrainica", with the exception of reviews and informational messages, undergo a double-blind peer review procedure (neither the author nor the reviewer know each other). The purpose of peer review is to facilitate an unbiased selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication. The peer review procedure provides for the analysis of authors’ manuscripts and is focused on the most objective assessment of the theoretical and methodological level and content of a scientific article, determination of its compliance with the requirements for academic publications. Depending on the specifics of the text and its subject matter, there may be two or more reviewers.

Procedure for reviewing manuscripts:

1.  When an article is received by the editorial office, a preliminary assessment of the compliance of the manuscript with the scientific profile of the collection and the rules for preparing articles for publication established by the editorial board is carried out within two weeks, and the text is analyzed for signs of plagiarism. In the letter, the editorial board informs the author / authors about receiving the text and sending it for double-blind peer review.

2.  The manuscript is submitted for review by independent experts who are specialized professionals. A review form is sent along with the manuscript. The reviewers are determined by the editor-in-chief of the collection or his/her deputy.

3.  The editors strive to eliminate “conflicts of interest” between authors and reviewers. The reviewer should not work in the same institution with the author (s) of the article and have joint publications with him (any of them) over the past years.

4.  The reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to the information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article submitted for review or use the content of the article in its publication.

5.  The reviewers assess the theoretical and methodological level of the articles, their relevance, significance, practical value and scientific novelty, determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications. On the basis of peer review, the conclusion is drawn: the article is recommended for publication; the article is recommended for publication after revision; the article is not recommended for publication. These reviews are free from pressure and influence from the editorial board.

6.  The time for double-blind peer review is set individually, taking into account the volume and topic of the presented text.

7.  Reviews of the manuscripts of scientific articles signed by reviewers with an ordinary or digital electronic signature are kept in the editorial office of the collection for at least 3 years.

8.  On the basis of reviews containing expert assessments and conclusions of reviewers, the editorial board makes one of the three decisions: to publish a scientific article; to return the article for revision; to reject the article. The decision is communicated to the author.

9.  In case of minor remarks requiring only editorial changes, with which the author (s) agrees (agree), a decision is made to publish an article.

10.  In the case of sending an article for revision, the author (s) is (are) provided with copies of reviews in electronic form (without specifying information about the reviewers) and recommendations for revising the text of the manuscript. The revision of the manuscript by the author (s) cannot take more than two weeks from the moment of informing him / them about the need to make changes. The date of the receipt of the article in the editorial office is the date of its last submission after editing by the author / authors.

11.  The author (s) has (have) the right to disagree with the conclusions of the reviewers. In this case, he (they) must make compelling arguments. If the editorial board finds them reasonable and fair, the manuscript is sent for additional review, on the basis of which the editorial board makes the final decision about the publication of the article.

12.  If necessary, the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board provide the authors of the manuscripts accepted for publication with recommendations for their revision in the process of editorial preparation.