Peer Review

Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in “the Journal of Ukrainian History” through the evaluation of submitted materials by highly qualified experts.

  1. The peer review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind peer review).
  2. Reviewers must adhere to the requirements of ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics and should be objective and impartial.
  3. The editorial board of the journal is guided in its activity by the principle that each scholar is obliged to perform a certain part of the reviewing work, thus contributing to the implementation of the method of analysis, as a leading way of scientific research and an essential stage of preparation of publications.
  4. If the selected reviewer is not sure that their scientific qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, they must return the manuscript.
  5. The reviewer should always objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, its theoretical part, interpretation and presentation of the material, as well as consider the extent to which the content of the article meets established scientific, linguistic and stylistic standards.
  6. The reviewer should take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest when the manuscript received is closely related to their current or published work. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without reviewing it, stating a conflict of interest.
  7. A reviewer is not entitled to evaluate the manuscript in case they have any personal or professional relationships with the author or co-author, whereas such relationships may affect the judgment as forthe manuscript publication.
  8. The reviewer should treat the manuscript under review as a confidential document: not to show the manuscript to other persons, not to discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone’s special consultation.
  9. Reviewers should clearly explain and substantiate their reasoning for the article, in order to reveal the depth of the point. Any allegations that certain observations, conclusions, arguments, etc. have already been published should be accompanied by a link to the relevant source.
  10. The reviewer should note the cases of incorrect or insufficient citing of works by other scientists that are directly related to the article under review as well as take into account that any comments insufficient citing of the reviewer’s works may seem biased.
  11. The reviewer should draw attention of the editor to any significant similarity between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another publisher.
  12. The reviewer should provide timely feedback to the editorial board.
  13. Reviewers are not entitled to use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations the article contains unless the author agrees. However, when such information indicates that the reviewer's own research can be inappropriate, termination of promulagation of unpublished materialsby the reviewer is not contrary to ethics.

In their work the reviewer presents:

  1. whether the theme of the submitted article fits the profile of the journal;
  2. whether the topic of the article is relevant and has theoretical and practical value;
  3. whether the content of the article correspond to the topic stated in the title;
  4. whether this article contains scientific novelty;
  5. whether scientific argumentation of this article is logical and convincing;
  6. specification of advantages and disadvantages of this article;
  7. whether the article is formatted according to the requirements of the journal;

Іf necessary, a list of corrections and additions that the author should make to the article.

Articles that fully comply with the requirements of this journal as for the publication of scientific articles and which did not raise comments and objections at the stage of primary control of the editorial board are reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements for scientific articles are not reviewed. If the article submitted has given rise to comments and questions, such manuscript shall be returned to the author for revision and improvement. The terms of peer review are determined by the order and the quantity of submitted manuscripts.Terms of review by the reviewer of the article ( from the date of receipt of the article for review ) are from one to two months.

Ethical policy

The author (team of authors) is fully responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which implies compliance with the following requirements:

  • the authors should present the results of their research clearly without falsifying the actual data;
  • the authors should clearly indicate research methods, avoiding ambiguity, in order to verify and confirm the results;
  • the authors must adhere to the established requirements for publications: the research should be original, not published in other scientific publications, without any forms of plagiarism;
  • the authors are collectively responsible for the submitted and published work;
  • it is forbidden and unethical to include persons who did not participate in the research;
  • the author should notify the editorial board if it finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article
  • materials aimed at inciting religious, interracial, ethnic hatred are unacceptable;
  • intolerance in all forms is unacceptable.