Reviewing

Type of Peer Review and General Approach

In the journal Scientific Bulletin of Vinnytsia Academy of Continuing Education. Series "Ecology. Public Administration", peer review is considered a key stage of scholarly evaluation aimed at ensuring the quality, reliability, and scientific relevance of publications.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, which предусматриває mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers. This approach minimizes the influence of non-academic factors and allows the evaluation to focus exclusively on the content of the research, its argumentation, and methodological quality.

Peer review is not limited to the formal selection of manuscripts but serves as a form of professional academic analysis that contributes to improving the quality of submitted texts.

Stages of Manuscript Consideration

The peer review process is sequential and includes several interconnected stages.

At the initial stage, the manuscript undergoes an internal editorial assessment. The editorial team evaluates its compliance with the journal’s scope, general academic requirements, logical structure, and adherence to principles of academic integrity. Particular attention is paid to detecting textual overlap using appropriate software tools. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be rejected without further peer review.

After passing this stage, the manuscript is submitted for external peer review. As a rule, at least two reviewers are involved. In cases of complex subject matter or significant discrepancies between reviewers’ conclusions, additional review may be initiated.

At the final stage, the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers’ reports, makes a decision regarding the manuscript and, if necessary, organizes its revision.

Criteria for Selecting Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is carried out individually for each manuscript, taking into account its subject matter and academic profile.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:
– possession of an academic degree or proven research experience in the field of public administration, management, or related disciplines;
– active publication record relevant to the manuscript’s topic;
– experience in peer review or participation in research projects;
– absence of conflicts of interest with the authors;
– adherence to academic ethical standards.

The editorial board seeks to combine national and international expertise in order to enhance the objectivity of evaluation and ensure a broader academic perspective.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

The evaluation of manuscripts is comprehensive and includes analysis of the following aspects:
– level of scientific originality and contribution to the relevant field of knowledge;
– relevance of the research in the context of current challenges in public administration;
– clarity of problem formulation and research objectives;
– justification and appropriateness of the methodology used;
– logical coherence and structural integrity of the text;
– correctness in the use of sources and referencing;
– reliability of the results and validity of the conclusions;
– practical or applied significance of the research;
– compliance with ethical standards of academic activity.

Timeframes for Peer Review

The editorial board ensures reasonable and predictable timeframes for manuscript consideration. The duration of one round of peer review usually ranges from 2 to 4 weeks, depending on the complexity of the topic and the availability of reviewers.

The overall duration of the editorial process may vary depending on the need for revision or additional rounds of review. The journal aims to maintain a balance between the efficiency of the process and the quality of expert evaluation.

Forms of Documentation of Peer Review

The results of peer review are documented in written form. A review may be provided either as a structured form or as an analytical report containing:
– an evaluation of the main characteristics of the manuscript;
– comments and recommendations regarding content, structure, and formatting;
– a final conclusion on the possibility of publication.

All reviews are retained by the editorial office as part of the manuscript’s editorial record.

Editorial Decision-Making

The decision on publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers’ reports, but is not a mechanical summary of them. Both the content of the reviews and the overall compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s academic standards and scope are taken into account.

Possible decisions include:
– acceptance without changes;
– acceptance with minor revisions;
– request for major revisions with subsequent re-review;
– rejection of the manuscript.

Authors receive consolidated feedback and are given the opportunity to revise the manuscript or provide a reasoned response to the comments.

Resolution of Disputes

In cases of significant discrepancies between reviewers’ reports or doubts regarding the quality of the evaluation, the editorial board may apply additional procedures, including:
– assignment of an independent additional review;
– involvement of a member of the editorial board in the expert assessment;
– conducting an internal scholarly discussion of the manuscript.

The final decision is made by the editorial board after comprehensive consideration of all materials.