Article review
All the manuscripts (articles) submitted to the editorial office of “Science and Science of Science” journal shall be subject to review procedure, with exception of the materials under the headings “Ukrainian archives”, “Chronicles of scientific life”, and “Reviews”, for which the publishing decision shall be taken by the journal’s Editorial Board.
Subject to review shall be scientific articles complying with the thematic coverage of the journal, formatted according to the journal’s requirements, and tested for plagiarism. Detailed requirements to the article formatting are displayed on the journal’s website: https://nasu-periodicals.org.ua/index.php/sofs/avtoram
The manuscript review shall be carried out confidentially, in keeping with the principle of double-blind peer review: nether expert / reviewer knows the author(s) identity(s), nor author(s) knows the identity of expert / reviewer.
The double-blind peer review shall be carried out with inviting high-profile experts in specific research fields. The experts must have: scientific degree; publications on the theme of a reviewed articled in editions indexed in Scopus та/або Web of Science databases; absence of conflict of interests with the authors. When necessary, international experts / reviewers shall be invited. An expert / reviewer cannot be the author’s coauthor over the latest three years.
The experts / reviewers shall be nominated by the journal Editor-in-Chief. By decision of the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, the nomination of reviewers can be entrusted to a member of the Editorial Board or be submitted to the consideration of the meeting of the Editorial Board.
The experts / reviewers, when handling the articles, shall adhere to the best international practices of manuscript review.
Having received an article’s manuscript from the editorial office (without identities of author(s)), they shall assess: relevance and scientific novelty of the topic, coherence of title and content, quality of literature review, correctness of methodology, reliability of results, and soundness of conclusions.
After the article review, the expert / review shall give one of the recommendations:
- Accept to publication without change.
- Accept to publication after minor corrections, but without repeated review.
- Accept to publication after major corrections, with repeated review.
- Reject, with the possibility of repeated submission.
- Reject the manuscript.
The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication of scientific articles shall be approved by the editor and the journal’s Editorial Board based on the received reviews. The decision on printing is subject to approval by the Scientific Council of the Institute.
Details of reviews shall be entered in special online tables of the journal; reviews shall be filed in the editorial office within the next three years, and shall be provided by request.
Procedure of review
Once the manuscript (article) comes to the journal editorial office, the executive secretary shall conduct its preliminary assessment for compliance with the journal profile and thematic coverage, correct formatting, and shall submit it to consideration of Editorial Board and further review.
When the manuscript is not structured by journal rules or not formatted in a proper manner, it can be returned to the author(s) for refinement. When the author(s) do not respond within thirty calendar days, the manuscript shall be deemed as one not undergoing the scrutiny by the journal’s editorial office.
The article shall be sent for review to two experts / reviewers. The experts / reviewers shall inform Editor-in-Chief and/or the editorial office on all the potential conflicts of interests.
When there are no conflicts of interests, the expert / reviewer shall provide the conclusion on the publishing of the manuscript. The deadline for manuscript review, if necessary, can be changed (prolonged), but shall not exceed six weeks.
Once the article is reviewed, the expert / reviewer shall fill a standard form (Form of review) containing final recommendations, and shall send it by e-mail to the journal’s editorial office; the editorial office shall inform the author the results of review.
When two positive conclusions are received, the manuscript shall be recommended for publishing.
In case of one negative and one positive review, the manuscript shall be given for consideration to the third reviewer.
In case of two negative conclusions, the manuscript shall not be recommended for publishing. In case of the author(s)’ disagreement with the reviewers’ conclusions, the article shall be given to additional independent review.
When the manuscript needs refinement, the comments to the article shall be sent to the author(s).
When the expert / reviewer recommends a substantial refinement of the article (“without repeated review” or “with repeated review”), he shall provide evidence-based explanations in a written form on appropriate ways of improving the manuscript.
The refined article that has undergone substantial corrections shall be sent to repeated review.
The manuscript can undergo not more than two rounds of review.
The overall term of review shall not exceed three months since the date when the article is received.
Interactions between authors and reviewers shall be carried out via the executive secretary of the journal.
When the reviewer’s comments on the necessity of substantial corrections in the manuscript’s text are received, the author shall be given advice to either account for the comments or deny the suggestions with which the author does not agree. The author must attach a letter to the refined manuscript, containing the answers on all the comments and explanations to all the changes made in the article.
When the author does not agree with the opinion of expert(s) / reviewer(s) and provides an informed answer, the manuscript (article) shall be subject to additional consideration by Editorial Board, to take the final decision.
The journal’s Editorial Board adheres in its work to the rules of scientific ethics in compliance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Ethic Code of the Ukrainian Scientist.
