Peer Review Process

The «Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University. Biology» guarantees that the editor, editorial board members, reviewers adhere strictly to the principles of scientific and publishing codes of ethics. The review process is a double-blind review - reviewer doesn't know the identity of the author, and vice-versa. Before the manuscripts are submitted for review, all information that would allow authorship to be identified is deleted. The journal prohibits any manipulation, falsification, or compromise of the peer review process. Any suspected unethical review practices will be investigated in accordance with the journal’s ethics policy and COPE recommendations.

The Editorial Board of the Journal reserves the right to make editorial and stylistic changes. 

In the case of a negative review, the article may be returned to the author for revision or rejected. The names of the reviewers in the context of specific articles submitted to the editorial board are not subject to disclosure.

If the manuscript does not correspond to the topic of the journal and is not designed according to the requirements of the journal, the authors shall be informed of the reasons for refusal to accept the manuscript. If the submitted manuscript is original, without suspicion of plagiarism, it is sent to the responsible editor. The editor-in-chief checks the quality of the manuscript according to the following basic criteria:

- the relevance of the topic and scientific contribution of the author;

- the necessary stylistic and linguistic level;

- citations and references, correct design.

The editor has the right to reject articles that do not correspond to the subject of the journal and do not meet the above criteria.

Based on a positive review from the editor, the article goes into the peer-review process. During the peer review process, at least two independent reviewers evaluate the quality of the submitted article and propose a follow-up procedure. The article review process takes up to two months (the first answer is usually no later than 20 days after the article is received by the editors).

Transparent Editorial Decision-Making Procedure

  1. Initial technical screening. After submission, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, complies with the author guidelines, contains all required metadata, and meets basic formatting requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction before editorial assessment.
  2. Preliminary editorial assessment (desk evaluation). The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript for originality, scientific relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, language clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. At this stage, the manuscript may be:
  • declined without external review (desk rejection), with reasons provided to the authors;
  • returned for preliminary revision; or
  • sent for external peer review.
  1. Conflict-of-interest check. Before assigning an editor or reviewers, the journal checks for potential conflicts of interest. Any editor with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript, and another editor is appointed.
  2. External peer review. Manuscripts that pass the desk evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the following criteria: originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s readership.
  3. Editorial evaluation of reviews. The Handling Editor evaluates the reviewers’ reports for quality, substantiation, and consistency. If the reviewers’ recommendations substantially diverge, the editor may:
  • request clarification from the reviewers;
  • invite an additional independent reviewer; or
  • make a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief based on the available reports.
  1. Final editorial decision. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, where delegated, by the authorized editor) on the basis of the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript’s scientific merit, compliance with journal policies, and the authors’ revisions. The journal may issue one of the following decisions:
  • Accept without revisions
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Resubmit after major revisions
  • Reject after peer review
  • Desk reject
  1. Communication of reasons. All editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in writing through the journal system or by email. In cases of revision or rejection, the decision letter includes the main reasons and, where applicable, anonymized reviewer comments.
  2. Revision stage. If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ and editors’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the editor and, if necessary, returned to one or more original reviewers.
  3. Appeals. Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, by members of the Editorial Board not involved in the original decision. A secondary review or an additional independent review may be initiated.
  4. Principles governing decisions. Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, originality, scientific validity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination or undue influence. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final responsibility for the decision rests with the journal’s editorial leadership.
  5. Indicative timelines. The journal aims to provide the first editorial response within the timeframe stated on the website. If additional review or ethical assessment is required, the editorial office informs the authors about the delay.