Review

Peer Review

Peer Review Procedure

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal Regional Aspects of Productive Forces Development of Ukraine are subject to mandatory scientific peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, whereby neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other’s identities.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

At the first stage, the Managing Editor evaluates the manuscript for:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope and subject areas;

  • adherence to the journal’s editorial policies;

  • conformity with manuscript structure and formatting requirements;

  • completeness of the required submission package.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be rejected without external review or returned to the authors for revision with the possibility of resubmission.

2. Academic Integrity Screening

All manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening using specialized software tools (e.g., StrikePlagiarism or equivalent systems).

If indications of academic misconduct are identified, the manuscript may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision.

3. Organization of the Peer Review Process

Before a manuscript is sent for review, all information that could identify the author(s) is removed.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise in the relevant field of research.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief from among members of the Editorial Board or external experts.

Reviewers must:

  • possess appropriate academic qualifications and publications related to the manuscript’s subject area;

  • have no conflict of interest with the author(s);

  • adhere to the principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and impartiality.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period, they must promptly inform the editorial office.

4. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

  • scientific originality and novelty;

  • relevance and timeliness of the topic;

  • methodological soundness;

  • logical structure and clarity of presentation;

  • consistency with the journal’s aims and scope;

  • scientific and practical significance of the results.

5. Review Procedure and Timeline

The peer review process is conducted confidentially.

The average review period is 2–4 weeks from the date the manuscript is assigned to a reviewer.

In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editorial office may commission an additional (third) independent review.

6. Editorial Decisions Following Peer Review

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, one of the following decisions may be made:

  • accept for publication;

  • accept subject to minor revisions;

  • accept subject to major revisions;

  • reject with the possibility of resubmission;

  • reject without the possibility of resubmission.

The Editorial Board may also reject a manuscript in cases of:

  • inconsistency with the journal’s scope;

  • failure to comply with formatting requirements;

  • lack of scientific novelty or insufficient scholarly quality;

  • duplicate publication;

  • violation of academic integrity principles;

  • non-scientific nature of the submitted material.

7. Manuscript Revision

Where revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) together with the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer comments are provided in an anonymized form.

Authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript accompanied by a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. All revisions should be clearly indicated.

8. Confidentiality

All materials submitted to the journal are treated as confidential.

Reviewers and members of the Editorial Board are required not to disclose information concerning submitted manuscripts and may not use unpublished materials for their own research purposes.

Further details are provided in the Privacy Policy section.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors, authors, and reviewers are required to avoid conflicts of interest and to disclose any actual or potential conflicts.

Where a conflict of interest is identified, the editorial office shall ensure an objective evaluation process, including, where necessary, the appointment of an alternative reviewer.

Further details are provided in the Conflict of Interest Policy section.

10. Appeals

Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal regarding an editorial decision.

Appeals are considered by the Editorial Board and may involve consultation with an additional independent reviewer.

Following the appeal review, a final decision is made.

11. Final Decision

The Editorial Board takes reviewers’ recommendations into account; however, the final decision regarding publication of a manuscript rests solely with the Editorial Board.

The journal seeks to ensure balanced representation of authors in each issue and to prevent excessive concentration of publications by any single author or institution.