named King Danylo Halytsky
1. Submission of the manuscript of the article
1.1. The author provides an editorial board with an article that meets the requirements of the journal policy and the rules for preparing articles for publication.
1.2. Manuscripts that do not meet the established requirements are not allowed for further consideration; the authors are reported about this.
2. Adoption and preliminary assessment of the manuscript of the article
2.1. The manuscript is registered by the executive secretary in the article registration log with indication of the date of its receipt, title, full author/s’ name, author/s’ place of work. The manuscript is assigned with an individual registration number.
2.2. The responsible secretary conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscripts of the articles submitted to the editorial board, their correspondence of the content of the profile material and the topics of the magazine, sends them for review to the members of the editorial board, scientific editors, experts on the issues discussed.
3. Transmission of the article to the review
3.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are directed to the profile of research to one reviewer, and if necessary – to two reviewers. Reviewers are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal. According to the Editor-in-Chief (under certain circumstances) reviewers can be assigned by members of the editorial board. In some cases, the selection of reviewers determined on a meeting of the editorial board.
3.2. For the reviewing process, reviewers can act as members of the editorial board of the journal as well as external qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific area: Doctor of Sciences, Professors, as a rule.
3.3. After receipt of an article for review (within 3 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials based on his own skills under the direction of the author’s research area and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any conflict of interests, the reviewer should not review the article and should inform the editorial board about this. The latter should decide to appoint another reviewer.
3.4. The reviewer usually takes the decision on the possibility of publishing the paper within 14 days. Period of the reviewing may change in each case subject considering the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of quality of provided materials but will not exceed 1 calendar month.
3.5. The journal uses the double-blind review procedure, that is, both reviewers and authors remain unknown to each other. The interaction between author and reviewers occurs in a way of correspondence by e-mail through the executive secretary of the journal.
3.6. The review is carried out according to the following criteria:
a) the relevance of the article to the subject of the Bulletin;
b) the title, abstract, key words, UDC code should match the content of the article;
c) the content of the article should correspond to the topic stated in the title;
d) the presence of elements of scientific novelty;
e) the compliance of the structure of the article with the requirements for the materials published in the specialized publications;
f) the degree of disclosure of the main results of the study in the English abstract of the article;
g)the conformity with the presentation of the text of the article and sources used to the requirements of the Bulletin;
h) 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).
3.7. For all manuscripts of articles submitted for review, the level of uniqueness of the author’s text is determined by means of the corresponding software, which shows the level of uniqueness, source and the fraction of the text coincidence (“eTXT Antiplagiat”, “Advego Plagiatus”).
3.8. After final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in the standard form (Review Form), which contains the final recommendations. The editorial informs the author of the results of the review by e-mail.
3.9. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain changes to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments when preparing the updated version of the article or it is justified to refute them. By the revised article, the author adds a letter that 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 for the decision and the preparation of a motivated conclusion about the possibility of publication. The date of adoption of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial staff of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and the possibility of publishing the article.
3.10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial staff of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send an 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, with the obligatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.
4. The decision to accept the article for publication
4.1. The decision to publish the manuscripts of papers submitted for review of the manuscripts is based on the feedback of the reviewers and the final conclusions of the editors.
4.2. The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of the publication is taken by the Chief Editor (or, at his request, by a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After deciding to allow the article to be published, the chief secretary notifies the author thereof and indicates the expected publication period.
5. Transferring the paper for publication
5.1. In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article is coming to the editorial portfolio of the journal for its publication in the order of the queue and relevance (in some cases, according to the decision of the Chief Editor, the article may be published on an exceptional basis, in the next issue of the journal).
5.2. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. Minor corrections of stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are submitted by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, manuscripts in the form of a layout of the article are returned to the author for approval.
5.3. The author is informed by the chief secretary about the timescale of printing the article within a maximum of one month from the date of receipt of a positive decision on the publication of the article.
6. Revision of the manuscript of the article
6.1. Articles sent to authors for correction must be returned to the editorial office no later than 2 weeks after receipt.
6.2. If the article is returned at a later date, the date of its receipt for printing is changed accordingly.
7. Responsibility of the author of the article
7.1. Responsibility for infringement of copyright and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article, the reliability of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made and the scientific and practical level relies on the author of the article.
8. Responsibility of the reviewer
8.1. Reviewers provide a written review of the manuscript, at the end of which, on the basis of the analysis of the readiness of the material, it is concluded that the article can be published.
8.2. If the reviewer recommends the article before posting after revision, taking into account comments, or does not recommend the article before publication, the reasons for such a decision should be stated in the review.
8.3. The reviewer must consider the submitted article within the time agreed with the responsible secretary and send a motivated refusal of review or review to the editorial office (by e-mail).
8.4. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, the reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation.
8.5. Reviewers are reported that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to non-disclosure information.
8.5. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article provided for review, or to use knowledge of the content of the article prior to its publication.
8.6. The review takes place on a confidential basis when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages, and peculiarities of the review, comments of reviewers and final publication decision) are not communicated to anyone other than authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only in case of presence of signs or a statement about the unreliability or falsification of the materials of the article.