Peer Review Process

The Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University. Biology adheres to the principles of academic integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, impartiality, and transparency in editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, handling editors, and reviewers are required to follow the ethical standards of scholarly publishing and the recommendations of COPE.

  1. Type of Peer Review

The Journal applies a double-blind peer review model. This means that reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) do not know the identity of the reviewers. Before a manuscript is sent for review, the editorial office removes any information that may directly or indirectly identify the author(s).

The Journal does not tolerate any manipulation, falsification, or other breaches of integrity in the peer review process. Any suspicion of unethical reviewing practices will be considered in accordance with the Journal’s ethical policy.

  1. Initial Technical Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial technical screening to verify:

  • compliance with the Journal’s scope;
  • compliance with the author guidelines and formatting requirements;
  • the presence of all required structural elements and metadata;
  • compliance with language and technical requirements;
  • the absence of obvious signs of academic misconduct.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the author(s) for technical revision or rejected before further consideration.

  1. Preliminary Editorial Evaluation

After technical screening, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor performs a preliminary editorial evaluation of the manuscript. At this stage, the following are assessed:

  • relevance of the topic;
  • originality and scholarly significance of the results;
  • methodological soundness;
  • clarity and coherence of presentation;
  • adequate academic, stylistic, and language quality;
  • accuracy of citations and reference formatting;
  • compliance with ethical standards of research and publication;
  • relevance to the Journal’s thematic profile.
  • Based on this evaluation, the manuscript may be:
  • rejected without external review (desk rejection);
  • returned to the author(s) for preliminary revision; or
  • sent for external peer review.
  1. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who possess appropriate academic qualifications, research expertise, and publication experience in the subject area of the manuscript.

When selecting reviewers, the editorial office considers:

  • subject-matter expertise in the relevant field;
  • recent scholarly publications related to the manuscript topic;
  • experience in peer review or editorial work;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide an objective review within the required timeframe.

The Journal does not invite reviewers who have a real or potential conflict of interest with the author(s), including recent co-authorship, affiliation with the same institution, supervisory relationships, joint projects, personal interest, or any other circumstances that may affect impartiality. If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from the review process.

  1. External Peer Review Procedure

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary editorial evaluation are sent for external review to at least two independent reviewers under the double-blind peer review model.

Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • originality and scientific novelty;
  • academic quality and significance of the results;
  • methodological rigor and validity of conclusions;
  • clarity, logic, and readability of presentation;
  • proper use of sources;
  • ethical compliance of the research;
  • relevance to the Journal’s scope and readership.

The reviewer submits a reasoned report and may recommend one of the following:

  • accept without changes;
  • accept after minor revisions;
  • reconsider after major revisions;
  •  
  1. Documentation of Peer Review

All reviews are submitted in written form through the Journal’s electronic system or by e-mail using the form established by the editorial office. A review must contain a reasoned assessment of the manuscript, comments, recommendations for the author(s), and a recommendation to the editors regarding further consideration of the manuscript.

All editorial decisions are also recorded in written form and communicated to the corresponding author through the Journal system or by e-mail. The editorial office retains reviews, editorial reports, correspondence with authors, and other related documents in the Journal’s archive in accordance with internal record-keeping and data retention policies. Reviewer comments shared with authors are provided in anonymized form.

  1. Editorial Assessment of Reviews and Decision-Making

The handling editor evaluates the reviews in terms of quality, completeness, reasoning, and consistency. If the reviewers’ recommendations differ substantially, the editorial office may:

  • request clarification from the reviewers;
  • appoint an additional independent reviewer; or
  • make a reasoned recommendation based on the available reviews and editorial assessment.

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor. Decisions are based solely on the scientific value of the manuscript, its originality, methodological quality, compliance with ethical standards, and relevance to the Journal’s scope, without discrimination or undue influence.

The Journal may make one of the following decisions:

  • accept without revision;
  • accept with minor revisions;
  • resubmit after major revisions;
  • reject after peer review;
  • reject without peer review (desk reject).
  1. Revision Stage

If revisions are requested, the author(s) must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response addressing the comments of the reviewers and editors. A revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor and, where necessary, sent back to one or more of the original reviewers.

  1. Communication with Authors

All editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in writing. In cases of rejection or revision requests, the author is provided with the main reasons for the decision and, where appropriate, anonymized reviewer comments.

  1. Appeals

Author(s) may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, where necessary, by members of the Editorial Board who were not involved in the initial consideration of the manuscript. An appeal may result in reconsideration of the manuscript or additional independent peer review.

  1. Review Timelines

The Journal seeks to ensure prompt and high-quality editorial consideration of submitted manuscripts. The first editorial response is normally provided within 20 days of manuscript submission. The full peer review process usually takes up to two months, depending on the timely receipt of reviews, the extent of necessary revisions, and, where applicable, any additional ethical or expert evaluation. In the event of delays, the editorial office informs the author(s).

  1. Editorial and Language Editing

The Editorial Board reserves the right to make editorial, stylistic, and language corrections to manuscripts accepted for publication, provided that such changes do not alter the content or scientific conclusions of the work. If substantial changes are necessary, they are agreed upon with the author(s).