Review procedure

Peer Review

Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure the high academic and theoretical standards of the journal “Mountain School of Ukrainian Carpaty”. The aim of the peer review process is to facilitate the careful selection of manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, and to determine the extent to which it meets academic, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the “Publication Ethics” section.

  1. The journal “Mountain School of Ukrainian Carpaty” adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process: reviewers are not aware of the authors’ personal details; authors are not aware of the reviewer’s personal details.
  2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the “Guidelines for Authors” section. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the current requirements, which have passed the initial check by the editorial board and a copyright check, are admitted to the review stage.
  3. The initial review of a scientific article is conducted by the editor-in-chief or the technical editor responsible for this stage of the review process. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (is the author or co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the review is conducted by their deputy or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. Articles must be relevant to the journal’s subject area. If the requirements for publication in the journal are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code to the article and removes information about the authors from it.
  4. The anonymised article is sent by email:
    • to the member of the editorial board responsible for the article’s scientific field;
    • to two external experts (reviewers).
    Ukrainian and foreign researchers specialising in the same scientific field as the article’s authors are invited to participate in the external review process. A letter requesting a review is sent to such a scholar on behalf of the editorial board. The anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and must not have a conflict of interest.
  5. During the peer review process, reviewers assess the following aspects:
    • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
    • the relevance and novelty of the research problem addressed in the article;
    • the justification of the practical significance of the research conducted;
    • the value to a wide readership.
  6. Reviewers complete standard review forms and select one of the following options:
    • recommend the article for publication;
    • recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
    • recommend the article for publication after substantial revisions;
    • do not recommend the article for publication.
    If the reviewers’ recommendation regarding the article is for rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the grounds for such a decision. Reviews signed by reviewers with a handwritten or electronic signature are retained by the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.
  7. The editorial board’s decision is sent to the authors. Articles requiring revision are sent together with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review, during which the reviewers may request further revisions. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
  8. The Editor-in-Chief analyses the reviewers’ reviews and makes the final decision on publication based on them, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding articles authored by himself, members of his family or colleagues, nor regarding materials in which he has a personal interest. Such articles undergo independent peer review without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or his research group. The final decision on these articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Peer review ( Peer review):
Review period: 2–4 weeks.
Time to acceptance: 4–8 weeks.