All the articles, except for reviews and informational notifications, which are received by the editorial board of the collection of scientific works «Ukrainian Biographistics = Biographistica Ukrainica», are reviewed. The goal of the review is to promote a selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and to make concrete recommendations for their improvement. The procedure of reviewing is focused on the most objective assessment of the scientific article’s content, identification of its compliance with the magazine. Also reviewing provides a comprehensive analysis of advantages and disadvantages of article materials. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view are published.

The degree of compliance with the rules of preparing the articles for publication in a collection is separately taken into account.

Open peer review is conducted by an expert of a certain scientific area, as a rule, a scientific supervisor of the author. Such a review should include information about research results validity, their relevance and novelty, as well as practical utility with the recommendations for publication. The signed review should be submitted together with the article to the editorial office by an author himself\herself.

After receipt of the article to the editorial office, during a week an assessment is made regarding the compliance of the given manuscript with the formal requirements for publication (text volume, number of data sources etc.). If the procedure completes successfully, a paper goes forward to reviewers. Reviewers take their decisions during 6–8 weeks. If a paper receives an approval, the manuscript is transmitted to preprint processing. After that blind editorial review is performed by the members of the Editorial Board (the reviewer knows the author of the article, but the author does not know the reviewer).

Individual papers may be submitted for consideration to an independent expert in relevant fields. In this case double-blind peer review is used (the reviewer does not know the author of the article and the author does not know the reviewer).

Reviewers are reported that manuscript which was sent is an intellectual property of authors and related to the information that remains confidential. Reviewers could not copy submitted for review articles or use knowledge about the content of the article before its publication.

According to the double-blind review process, there are three possible variants of a reply to an author:

a) the article is approved

b) the article should be corrected by an author

c) the article cannot be published.

The author has an opportunity to read the text of the review, particularly if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.