REVIEW PROCESS

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintenсe of  a high scientific and theoretical level of the collection «Scientia et societus» and with the purpose of choice  the most valuable and relevant scientific works.

The collection «Scientia et societus» uses two-sided blind (anonymous) review:

  • the personal data of the author / authors are not disclosed to the reviewer;
  • the personal data of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author (s).

Interaction of reviewers and authors is carried out only through authorized members of the Editorial board.

Articles by Editorial board members go through the standard procedure of external independent review, organized by the editor-in-chief. Members of the editorial board do not participate in the consideration of their own manuscripts.

Reviewers consider  of the article on the following aspects:

  • the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • the content of the article corresponds to the thematic areas of the collection;
  • the content of the article has a scientific novelty;
  • the article corresponds to the scientific level of the collection;
  • it is expedient to publish the article taking into account the previously published literature on this issue and whether it is of interest to a wide range of readers;
  • what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, which corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The terms of reviewing are determined by the order and number of manuscripts submitted to the editors.

All articles submitted to the Editorial Board, except for reviews and informational messages are reviewed.

Reviewing is based on the base of confidentiality, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers’ comments and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers.

Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the peer-reviewed article or use information from the content of the article prior to its publication.

The order of transit the manuscripts

  1. The author submits to the Editorial Board an article that meets the editorial policy of the collection and the requirements relating to scientific works, as well as the rules of preparation of articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted norms are not allowed for further consideration, which is reported to the authors.
  2. Manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board are sent according to the profile of the research to one, if necessary – to two reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief of the collection appoints reviewers. By decision of the editor-in-chief (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the Editorial Board. In some cases, the question of choice reviewers is decided at a meeting of the Editorial Board. By decision of the editor-in-chief, individual articles by eminent scholars, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard peer-review procedure.
  3. Members of the Editorial Board of the collection «Scientia et societus» and third-party highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field may act as reviewers of articles.
  4. In all manuscripts submitted to the reviewer, the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author’s text must be determined with the help of appropriate software.
  5. A reviewer may not be a coauthor of a peer-reviewed article, as well as supervisors of degree seekers.
  6. After receiving the article for consideration, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials, based on the conformity of their own qualifications to the direction of the author’s research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer should waive the review and notify the editorial board. The latter must decide of question on the appointment of another reviewer.
  7. The reviewer fills in a standardized form, which contains his final conclusions. The reviewer sends to the editors of the collection a conclusion on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of printing the article. The timing of the review may vary from case to case, depending on the conditions required to assess the value of the manuscript as objectively as possible.
  8. The Editors of the collection by e-mail send the author a review with the results of the analysis of the article.
  9. If the reviewer indicates on the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editors of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the Editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.
  10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the Editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer.
  11. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the editor-in-chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the Editorial Board), and if necessary – by a meeting of the Editorial Board as a whole. After deciding on the admission of the article to publication, the executive secretary notifies the author and indicates the expected date of publication.
  12. In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article is sent to the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in order of relevance and relevance (in some cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published extraordinarily in the next issue of journal).
  13. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscripts in the form of a model of the article are returned to the author for approval.
  14. At the request of the author, the Editorial Board provides him with a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication under the signature of the Editor-in-Chief.

Reasons for refusing to publish articles

The reasons for the deviation of the article from publication are the following factors:

  1. Revision the manuscript of the article in the system did not give a positive result (plagiarism was detected).
  2. The article doesn’t correspond to the branch profile of the collection of scientific articles «Scientia et societus».
  3. The article doesn’t meet the requirements of standardized approaches to scientific articles, which are established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and International Conventions.
  4. The comments and wishes of the reviewers on the discussion questions that arose during the review were not taken into account.
  5. On the basis of the expert assessment of two reviewers, the Editorial Board decided to return the manuscript to the author without the right to resubmit it to the editorial office.

The main grounds for finalization the article

  1. The article doesn’t contain annotations, or in case of their presence does not correspond to the number of characters and the content of the established requirements.
  2. The structure of the article doesn’t meet the requirements.
  3. The content of the article is not detailed enough for readers to fully understand the approach proposed by the author.
  4. The article doesn’t contain scientific novelty.
  5. The article doesn’t clearly indicate what part of the text or conclusions reflects the innovation in science, in contrast to what is already known.
  6. The article reveals copyright infringement of other scholars (interference with their intellectual property, incorrect citations, lack of references, etc.).
  7. The manuscript doesn’t confirm the authenticity of the facts and data, not substantiated conclusions.
  8. The list of references doesn’t contain scientific sources, the names of the authors of which are mentioned in the text of the article.
  9. The article contains theories, concepts, conclusions, etc., which are not fully disclosed and are not confirmed by the presented data, arguments or information provided.
  10. The article doesn’t meet the norms of the culture of language and written speech, as well as the scientific style of presentation of the material.
  11. The list of used sources and literature is incorrectly executed.