Peer reviewing

The process of analysis of scientific articles is aimed at identifying of their value, originality, relevance and scientific expediency and is based on the experience of leading international scientific publications, on improving the quality level of printed materials.

The aim of criticizing is standard-setting of authorial manuscripts quality.

The tasks of criticizing consist in verification of:

• the general scientific level of the article, the relevance of the study, the presence of scientific novelty in it;
• quality and relevance of semantic content, clarity in the structuring of the article;
• the correct use of professional terminology, conceptual apparatus, etc.;
• plagiarism

The Almanac complies with the rules of bilateral “blind” (anonymous) peer-reviewing: Authors are not informed of the names of the Reviewers, Peer-reviewers are not informed of the names of the Authors (neither before nor after publication of the article, if it is accepted for publication). Interaction of Reviewers and Authors is carried out only through authorized members of the editorial board.

Reviews are presented only to authorized members of the Editorial Board of the Almanac and the Author, and in some cases to members of the International Editorial Board.

The terms of the review are determined by the order and number of manuscripts submitted to the editor.

Positive reviews confirming the possibility of accepting articles for publication are announced at meetings of the International Editorial Board and Editorial Board.

The time period for the reviewer to review an article - from the day he received the article for review - up to three months.

Scientific Articles Review Procedure:

1. Articles that do not correspond to the problems of the almanac are not formatted according to requirements, are not accepted for consideration;
2. all articles are reviewed for plagiarism before being considered by the editorial board and submitted to reviewers;
3. articles received by the editorial office undergo initial control of their compliance with the profile of the Almanac, the correctness of structuring and design in accordance with the requirements for the design of articles;
4. first expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the Chief Editor or Deputy Chief Editor;
5. all manuscripts are sent to two Reviewers based on the profile of their research. Appoints Reviewers by the Chief Editor or Deputy Chief Editor with his consent;
6. peer review is carried out confidentially on the principle of bilateral “blind” (anonymous) review, when neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). Communication between the Author and the Reviewers takes place virtually (with the help of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or Executive Secretary of the Almanac);
7. for the analysis of articles, domestic and foreign highly qualified specialists (DSc, Professors) who possess the necessary knowledge, have experience in scientific, analytical and expert work in this scientific field are invited as reviewers; have publications that meet the scientific profile of the publication; have publications in publications included in the List of scientific professional publications of Ukraine and / or in foreign publications that are part of the scientometric databases Web of Science Core Collection and / or Scopus; have an impeccable reputation in the scientific community;
8. the Editors send the Author a decision by e-mail; decisions can be based on the following requirements: a) it is recommended to publish after making author’s changes, taking into account the comments and suggestions of the editorial board and reviewer; b) recommended for publication after the Author makes changes, taking into account the comments and suggestions of the editorial board and Reviewer;                      c) additional reviewing by other Reviewer is necessary after the Author completes the article taking into account the comments and suggestions made by the previous Reviewer; d). decline the article;
9. if a decision is made on the need to finalize the article, the Author to provide an updated version. In this case, he can refuse to make adjustments, notify the editorial board of his decision and give arguments. Сomments consider the arguments provided, if they are considered weighty, the article is re-sent for review to other Кeviewers. If the opinion was not considered by the reviewers, the article will be rejected due to the refusal to make a decision by the editorial board and reviewers;

1. the final decision allows you to publish articles that are subject to additional or re-peer review, adopted by the Уditors-in-chief (or, on his behalf, by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief);
2. the editorial board reserves the right to scientific and literary content. Minor corrections of punctuation-grammatical, stylistic or formal-technical nature, which do not affect the semantic content of the articles, are made without the consent of the Author. If it is necessary to clarify certain issues, the manuscript is returned to the Author for approval;
3. the Editorial Board reserves the right to scientific and literary editing of the content of the article in agreement with its Author. Minor corrections of punctuation-grammatical, stylistic or formal-technical nature, which do not affect the semantic content of the article, are made without the consent of the Author. If it is necessary to clarify certain issues, the manuscript is returned to the Author for approval.

Reasons to refuse to publish an article

The reasons for rejecting the article may be:

1. checking the manuscript of the article revealed plagiarism;
2. the article does not meet the profile of the almanac;
3. comments and suggestions of the Reviewers on discussion issues were not taken into account; 
4. on the basis of the expert evaluation of two Reviewers, the Editorial Board decided to return the manuscript to the Author without the right to re-submit it to the editor;
5. technical requirements for the design of articles are not met;
6. еhe structure of the article is not observed, any of the required elements are missing, a low-quality translation into a foreign language is provided, the text contains many spelling errors and typos.