REVIEWING PROCEDURE OF ARTICLES RECEIVED TO SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL “SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN OF THE DNIPROPETROVS’K
STATE UNIVERSITY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS”
Reviewing scientific articles is carried out by expert evaluation of meeting the established requirements, quality and originality of given manuscripts. The editorial board of the journal uses the following reviewing types: open peer review, single-blind review and double-blind review.
Stage I: Selection and registration of manuscripts
After receiving the article manuscript to the editorial board the materials are checked by the secretary of the editorial board for compliance with the requirements regarding the content and design of the article, after which they are registered in the journal of articles manuscripts with the serial number and the receiving date. If the materials do not meet the established requirements they are not accepted for consideration, and the author / co-authors within three days receive an appropriate notification by e-mail.
Mandatory requirement: if the author/co-authors have/has no scientific degree, he(she)/they is/are obliged to provide together with the article manuscript two reviews (or scan-copies of reviews, if the submission of materials is to the e-mail address of the editorial board) made by Ph.D./Doctor of Sciences in the corresponding field which will allow for an open peer review procedure). If one of the author/co-authors holds/hold a Ph.D. degree no reviews are submitted.
Stage 2: Consideration of the manuscript by the chairman of the editorial board and the definition of reviewers
The head of the editorial board or his/her deputy/deputies analyzes/analyze the manuscript on the subject of compliance with a particular branch of science and the requirements of the journal to the content, the interest of publication for the journal’s readers, relevance to modern science. In the case of a positive conclusion he/she appoints an executive editor from among the members of the editorial board to organize the manuscript review procedure: “single-blind review” (the reviewer knows the author, but the author does not know the reviewer) or “double blind review” (the reviewer or author of the article do not know each other).
The number of reviewers in both cases must be at least two. The appointment of reviewers is based on their experience and available scientific publications in appropriate area.
Stage 3: Analysis of manuscripts by reviewers, their interaction with the executive editor and authors
Reviewers make analysis of manuscripts and within ten day submit to the editorial board the written (in the case of e-mail communication – scan copies of reviews) reviews according to the established review form.
The review indicates one of the conclusions for the manuscript:
1) to recommend the article for publication without changes;
2) to recommend the article for publication taking into account the reviewer’s comments and recommendations, which are agreed with the author / authors;
3) to return the article to the author for revision with further reviewing;
4) to refuse the author/authors to publish the article.
The communication between reviewers, authors of articles is provided by the executive secretary of the editorial board who, in the case of comments and recommendations of reviewers, agrees with authors concerning changes in the manuscript.