THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCESS
of articles submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal “Nobel Herald”
1. The manuscript of the scientific article submitted to the editorial board of the journal is preliminarily checked for compliance with formal requirements for the published materials (thematic profile of the journal, structure, article submission guidelines, availability of annotations and key words in Ukrainian, Russian and English, as well as a summary of the article in English in the volume established by the editorial board, bibliography, information about the author that contains contact information, scanned copy certified by signatures of all co-authors for publication of the material in the journal, etc) and incorrect borrowing of someone’s research material.
Executive secretary notifies the authors about the receipt of the article, the results of the pre-screening and article’s assignment for reviewing by e-mail. If the formal requirements of the received materials are not met, the editorial board refuses to publish the submitted materials due to “a formal non-conformity”.
2. All materials not rejected as a result of the pre-screening are sent to two peer reviewers for mandatory independent scientific examination. Expert peer review is conducted according to the principle of “double-blind peer review” when neither the author is notified with the names of reviewers, nor the peer reviewers know the author's name. The peer reviewers are invited leading experts in the field close to the subject matter of the presented material. Qualified specialists of domestic and foreign higher educational establishments and scientific organizations may act as peer reviewers.
3. The scientific review of manuscripts has to lead to reasoned responses of peer reviewers to the following questions:
1) whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
2) whether the material presented for publication contains scientific novelty;
3) whether the presented material contains informational novelty;
4) whether there are signs of incorrect borrowings or other forms of violation of the scientific ethics guidelines and academic virtue by the author when writing the material;
5) whether the practical significance of the material is revealed;
6) whether the material meets the requirements for the structure of publication, its language and style of presentation, applied terminology, the visibility of tables, diagrams, drawings, the accuracy of the citation;
7) whether the peer-reviewed material represents an interest for the reader of the journal.
The peer review is a questionnaire form approved by the editorial board of the journal, suggesting answers to the stated questions and a detailed summary at the end with arguments for scientific novelty and the practical significance of the material.
4. Based on the results of the scientific peer review, the peer reviewer shall provide one of the following recommendations:
1) the material is recommended for publication in the introduced form (without comments);
2) the material is recommended for publication with a possible (at the discretion of the author) consideration of feedback of peer reviewers;
3) the material is recommended for publication subject to the comments made by peer reviewers have been dealt with by the author;
4) the material is not recommended for publication.
5. Based on the results of the peer review a list of comments and suggestions of the peer reviewers is sent to the author with a recommendation to take them into account when finalizing the material and determining the conditions of publication (if any) of the material. In the case of the author’s disagreement with the opinion of the peer reviewers, an additional review is appointed, which takes into account the opinions of all members of the editorial board.
6. The following articles are not allowed to be published in a scientific journal:
– articles that have been earlier published in other publications;
– articles that do not comply with the submission guidelines;
– articles whose authors refuse to make technical follow-on revision of their articles;
– articles whose authors neither follow peer reviewer’s comments or reasonably dismiss them.
7. The editorial staff of the journal is obliged to ensure that peer reviewers maintain in confidence all information about the manuscript submitted for scientific review. The peer reviewer is not allowed to discuss the manuscript with any third parties. Prior to the publication of the materials, peer reviewers are not entitled to use or refer to peer-reviewed materials.