Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is a fundamental component of the editorial process aimed at ensuring a high academic and theoretical standard of publications in the Journal of Kryvyi Rih National University.
Peer review is understood as an independent and impartial assessment of a manuscript by experts in the relevant field in order to determine its scientific merit, validity of results, compliance with academic, ethical, and editorial standards, and suitability for publication.
The main objectives of peer review are:
- to select high-quality scholarly manuscripts;
- to provide an objective evaluation of the research;
- to ensure compliance with academic, literary, and ethical standards.
All participants in the process must adhere to the principles of
publication ethics, including impartiality, confidentiality, and academic integrity.
1. Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system:
- reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities;
- authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
This ensures an unbiased evaluation process.
2. Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary screening to ensure compliance with the journal’s requirements, including formatting, copyright, and thematic relevance. Only manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to peer review.
3. Initial Editorial Assessment and Conflict of Interest
The initial assessment is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor.
A conflict of interest arises when an individual involved in the evaluation process has personal, professional, or financial interests that could influence their judgement (e.g. being an author, co-author, colleague, or relative of the author).
In cases of conflict of interest:
- the individual must withdraw from the evaluation process;
- the manuscript is reassigned to another editorial board member with no conflict of interest.
Following preliminary approval, the manuscript is anonymised by the technical editor and assigned a registration code.
4. Review Process
The anonymised manuscript is sent to:
- a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant subject area;
- at least two independent external reviewers.
External reviewers include Ukrainian and international scholars specialising in the relevant field.
5. Reviewer Eligibility Criteria
A reviewer may be invited if they:
- hold a doctoral degree (PhD or equivalent) in a relevant field;
- have a proven record of research and publications;
- possess expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
- are not affiliated with the same institution as the author(s);
- have no recent co-authorship with the author(s);
- have no personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.
Reviewers must:
- disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if necessary;
- maintain confidentiality;
- provide objective, well-reasoned, and constructive feedback.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess:
- consistency between the title and content;
- relevance and scientific novelty;
- validity and justification of results;
- practical significance;
- clarity and value for the academic community.
7. Review Outcomes
Reviewers recommend one of the following:
- accept for publication;
- accept with minor revisions;
- accept with major revisions;
- reject.
In cases of revision or rejection, reviewers must provide a clear and reasoned justification.
Review reports are retained by the editorial office for three years.
8. Communication with Authors
Authors receive the editorial decision along with anonymised review reports.
If revisions are required:
- the revised manuscript is resubmitted for further review;
- reviewers may request additional changes;
- revision does not guarantee acceptance.
9. Final Decision and Conflict of Interest Management
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ reports.
However:
- the Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding their own work, or work authored by colleagues or relatives;
- such manuscripts are handled by the Deputy Editor;
- all submissions involving potential conflicts of interest undergo independent review.
Timeframes:
peer review: 2-4 weeks
average time to first decision: 4-8 weeks
