Peer review of manuscripts submitted to the journal “Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology” is carried out to ensure the appropriate scientific, theoretical, methodological and ethical quality of the published materials. The expert evaluation procedure is aimed at the objective selection of submitted manuscripts, verification of their scientific quality, compliance with the journal’s scope, the requirements of academic integrity, literary standards and the principles of publication ethics. All persons involved in the peer review process must observe impartiality, confidentiality and the provisions of the journal’s editorial policy on Publication ethics.
- The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure. This means that reviewers do not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, and authors do not have access to the personal data of reviewers.
- All materials submitted to the editorial office are first checked for compliance with the thematic scope of the journal and the requirements set out in the “Terms of Publication” section. Only manuscripts that have been prepared in accordance with the journal’s general requirements, have passed initial editorial screening and have been checked for compliance with copyright and academic integrity requirements are admitted to peer review.
- The initial consideration of a manuscript is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief. If there are circumstances that may give rise to a conflict of interest on the part of the Editor-in-Chief, including cases where the Editor-in-Chief is the author or co-author of the article, has family, official, academic, financial or other professional connections with the authors, or has any personal interest in the outcome of the manuscript’s consideration, the Editor-in-Chief is fully excluded from all stages of the editorial process concerning that manuscript. In such cases, the initial assessment, organisation of peer review and subsequent decision-making are handled by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.
- Manuscripts that comply with the journal’s scope and formal requirements are forwarded to the technical editor. The technical editor assigns a registration code to the article and removes from the text all information that may identify the author or group of authors.
- The anonymised manuscript is sent by email to a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scientific field, as well as to two external independent experts. Ukrainian and international specialists who have appropriate academic qualifications and work in a field corresponding to the subject of the submitted research are invited to conduct external review. On behalf of the editorial office, reviewers are sent a request to carry out an expert evaluation, together with the anonymised text of the article and the standard review form.
- Reviewers may not be persons who work at the same institution as the authors, have joint publications, current research projects, administrative subordination, family ties, financial interests or any other circumstances that may affect the objectivity of the expert evaluation. If a potential conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must inform the editorial office and decline to review the manuscript.
- During expert evaluation, reviewers analyse the correspondence of the article’s content to the stated topic, the relevance of the research problem, scientific novelty, methodological soundness, practical significance of the results, logic of presentation, quality of argumentation and the potential value of the material for the journal’s readership.
- Following consideration of the manuscript, reviewers complete the standard review form and select one of the following recommendations:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revision;
- recommend the article for publication after major revision;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
If a reviewer recommends revision or rejection of the manuscript, the reviewer must provide a written, reasoned explanation indicating the main grounds for the decision. External experts usually consider a manuscript within two weeks of receiving it. Reviews certified by the reviewer’s handwritten or electronic signature are stored by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the relevant article appears.
- The decision of the editorial board is communicated to the authors. If the article requires revision, the authors are sent the reviewers’ comments without disclosure of the reviewers’ personal data. The revised manuscript may be resubmitted for peer review. During reconsideration, reviewers have the right to recommend additional changes. Submission of a revised text does not guarantee its acceptance for publication: if the changes made do not address the comments or do not comply with the journal’s requirements, the manuscript may be rejected.
- After receiving the reviews, the Editor-in-Chief analyses the experts’ conclusions and, on their basis, makes the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article, taking into account the reviewers’ reasoning, the quality of the revision and the material’s compliance with the journal’s editorial policy.
- The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in the consideration, review, discussion or decision-making concerning manuscripts in which the Editor-in-Chief has or may have a conflict of interest. This applies to articles authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editor-in-Chief’s family, close colleagues, members of the Editor-in-Chief’s research group, as well as materials related to projects, organisations, products or services in which the Editor-in-Chief has a personal, professional or financial interest. Such manuscripts undergo independent peer review without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or persons connected with the Editor-in-Chief. The final decision on such manuscripts is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another authorised member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.
The usual period for expert evaluation of a manuscript is 2-4 weeks.
The average time to the first editorial decision is 4-8 weeks.