Peer-review process
All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the journal “Research Bulletin. Series: Philological Sciences” undergo a peer-review procedure.
The journal adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process: reviewers are unaware of the authors’ personal data, and authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identities.
Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements specified in the “Conditions” section. Only manuscripts prepared in accordance with the “Requirements for execution” and that have passed the initial editorial screening and copyright verification are admitted to the peer-review stage.
The Editor-in-Chief conducts the initial evaluation of the manuscript. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (is the author or co-author of the manuscript, or has family or professional relations with the authors), the peer-review process is handled by another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. Manuscripts must correspond to the scope of the journal. If the publication requirements are met, the manuscript is assigned a registration code and all information about the authors is removed.
The anonymous manuscript is then sent by email to:
- a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant academic field of the manuscript;
- two external experts (reviewers).
External reviewers include Ukrainian and international Doctors of Sciences specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the manuscript. On behalf of the editorial office, such scholars receive an invitation letter requesting a review. The email includes the anonymous manuscript and a standard review form. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and must not have any conflict of interest.
During the peer-review process, reviewers evaluate the following aspects:
- correspondence of the article’s content to the topic stated in the title;
- relevance and originality of the scientific problem addressed in the article;
- justification of the practical significance of the conducted research;
- value of the article for a broad readership.
Reviewers complete a standard review form and choose one of the following recommendations:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
- recommend the article for publication after major revisions;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
If reviewers recommend rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation for their decision. Reviews signed with either a handwritten or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appeared.
The decision of the editorial board is communicated to the authors. Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the authors together with the review text without indicating the reviewers’ identities. The revised version of the manuscript is submitted for re-review, during which reviewers may request additional revisions. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance; if reviewers consider the changes insufficient, the manuscript will be rejected.
The Editor-in-Chief analyzes the reviewers’ reports and makes the final decision on publication based on their recommendations, arguments, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, members of their family, or colleagues, or in cases where they have a personal interest. Such manuscripts undergo independent peer review without the involvement of the editor or their research group. The final decision regarding these manuscripts is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Peer-review period: 2–4 weeks.
