Review procedure
Review procedure
All manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the editors of the journal “Regional aspects of productive forces development of Ukraine” undergo a review process based on the principle of Double-blind review (two-way "blind" (anonymous) review), during which the personal data of the author/authors are not disclosed to the reviewer; and the reviewer's personal data is not disclosed to the author/authors.
First of all, the responsible editor checks the overall design, subject matter, compliance with the reactionary policy of the magazine. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's subject matter and editorial policies or journal editorial standards will be rejected without review. Manuscripts of articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for structure and design are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
Article manuscripts must be checked for plagiarism in the Unichesk system. If a significant percentage of textual borrowings are found, the manuscript materials are returned to the authors for revision or rejected. If signs of plagiarism are detected, the article will be returned to the author without the right to resubmit this article.
After all internal checks, the author's original article is submitted for external review.
The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines for the article submitted for publication a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board, who supervises the relevant scientific direction.
In the absence of a member of the editorial board - the curator of the relevant area, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines the external reviewer.
Reviewers (both editorial board members and external) should be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably in the last 5 years). Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review in the event of a clear conflict of interest, which affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
Reviewers' decisions can be as follows:
- accept;
- accept after minor revisions;
- to be adopted after significant revisions;
- reject with a proposal for resubmission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be asked to resubmit the article after substantial revision of the content, if, according to the reviewers, the article requires additional experiments, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions);
- reject (the article is rejected without the right to resubmit the same article if it has serious flaws or does not contain original scientific results).
The editorial board can reject an article if:
- a complete package of accompanying documents is missing;
- the design of the article does not meet the above requirements;
- the topic of the article does not correspond to the profile of the publication;
- the title of the article does not correspond to the content;
- the article is written at a low scientific level;
- materials were previously published in whole or in part in other editions or submitted for consideration to the editors of other magazines;
- the article is completely or partially someone else's (the author has committed plagiarism);
- the material has an advertising nature;
- the problem raised in the article has lost its relevance.
If the article can be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the authors along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors' recommendations, if any.
The author resubmits a revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers' comments. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article.
The editors take into account the comments of the reviewers, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editorial board.
