Reviewing

Reviewing policy

All submissions to the editorial team of the Diplomatic Ukraine scientific yearbook undergo a double-blind review process: authors do not know the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers do not know the authors’ identities.

Reviewing is a mandatory stage of the editorial process and is designed to ensure the quality of scientific publications, their scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance, methodological soundness, logical coherence of the presentation, and compliance with the principles of academic integrity.

 

Reviewers are specialists who:

  • hold a PhD or a doctoral degree;
  • have published research papers on the subject of the article under review;
  • have experience of publishing in professional journals and/or journals indexed in Category A databases;
  • have no conflict of interest with the author(s);
  • at least one reviewer is not affiliated with the author’s (authors’) institution;
  • have not co-authored any publications with the author(s) within at least three previous years.

Where possible, foreign academics are invited to participate in the review process.

The editorial process consists of the following stages:

  1. Preliminary editorial review (up to 7 calendar days):
    Manuscripts are checked using specialised software for compliance with the profile and subject area of the scientific yearbook, adherence to formatting requirements, and the presence of text plagiarism. The results of this check determine whether the manuscript is sent for review or rejected without review.
  2. Appointment of the reviewers (2–3 calendar days):
    The editorial board selects at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field who agree to review the manuscript. The reviewers receive an anonymised manuscript.
  3. Review (2–4 weeks):
    The review is based on established criteria, including the following:
  • relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
  • consistency of the title, purpose, and contents of the article;
  • the extent to which scientific sources have been conducted;
  • soundness and correctness of the methodology;
  • accuracy of the findings;
  • validity of the conclusions;
  • quality of the scientific presentation and framing.
  1. Editorial decision:
    Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial board will take one of the following decisions:
  • accept for publication as is;
  • accept after minor revision;
  • send back for substantial revision, subject to re-review;
  • reject, subject to resubmission;
  •  

If there is a significant discrepancy between the reviews, either an additional reviewer is appointed, or the editorial board makes the decision.

  1. Revision of the manuscript by the author(s) (up to 14 calendar days):
    The author receives anonymized reviews and prepares a revised version of the article and a substantiated response to the reviewers’ comments.
  2. Final decision:
    The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the editorial board.

Conflict of interest

In the event of a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial team and decline to review the manuscript. The editorial team will arrange for a replacement reviewer.

Review timeframes

  • The total time frame for the manuscript review prior to the initial decision is 6–8 weeks;
  • The time frame for the revision by the author(s) is up to 14 calendar days;
  • The time frame for the re–review is up to 10–14 calendar days.

Appeal

The author(s) have the right to submit a substantiated appeal against a decision to reject a manuscript within 10 calendar days of receiving the respective notification. The appeal is examined by an independent member of the editorial board.

The editorial office retains all reviews for at least three years and may provide them upon request to authorized bodies in accordance with the current legislation of Ukraine.

Once an article has been accepted for publication, it undergoes literary editing, editing of the English-language abstract, and final approval by the author. The editorial team reserves the right to refuse publication if the author fails to incorporate editorial comments or makes substantial changes to the text after the review process has been completed.