Reviewing

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the collection of scientific articles "Actual Problems of Improving the Current Legislation of Ukraine" undergo a structured peer review process with the aim of ensuring the scholarly quality, originality, and relevance of the materials to the scope of the publication. The average duration of peer review and the time to the first editorial decision is 4 to 6 weeks.

Preliminary Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial check by the editorial board, in the course of which the following are assessed: the originality of the material and the absence of its simultaneous submission to other publications; correspondence to the scope of the collection; compliance with the formatting requirements; adherence to ethical standards, including the results of a plagiarism check. Manuscripts that do not meet the said requirements may be rejected without being sent for external peer review.

Peer Review

Manuscripts that have passed the preliminary screening are forwarded to the handling editor and sent to a reviewer (an expert in the relevant field). Reviewers are selected on the criterion of scholarly competence in the relevant area of legal science and are obliged to declare any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of their assessment.

The collection applies a double-blind peer review procedure, under which neither the reviewers know the identities of the authors, nor do the authors know the identities of the reviewers. This procedure ensures the maximum impartiality of the evaluation of the manuscript.

Decision-Making

On the basis of the reviewers' opinions and the assessment of the handling editor, one of the following decisions is taken: to accept the article for publication; to accept it subject to minor revisions; to return it for substantial revisions; or to reject it. The final decision is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Procedure

Where revision is required, the authors submit a revised version of the manuscript together with a written response to the reviewers' comments, in which it is indicated, point by point, which of the comments have been taken into account and in what manner, as well as the author's reasoned position with regard to those comments with which the author disagrees. The editorial board verifies the completeness of the response to the reviewers' comments before the final acceptance of the article for publication.

Confidentiality and Integrity

All manuscripts are treated by the editorial board as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are not entitled to use unpublished materials for their own benefit or to transfer them to third parties without the consent of the author. In cases where possible breaches of publication ethics are identified, the editorial board acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).