Peer review process

The review process of the submitted articles to the "The Ukrainian Numismatic Annual" focuses on identifying the degree of their value, originality, relevance and scientific feasibility for the prerogatives of the journal, the suitability of the manuscript for its publication; oriented towards improving the quality of printed materials, overcoming bias and inappropriateness in rejecting or accepting articles.

The purpose of the review is to establish standards for the quality of copyright manuscripts, to match their journal profile, and to improve the quality of scientific articles published, through the evaluation of materials by highly skilled experts. In addition, the purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poorly-practiced scientific research and to ensure the harmonization and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the research was conducted.

The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors, and is carried out by two independent reviewers (duplicate "blind" review). The interaction of reviewers and authors is carried out only through authorized members of the editorial board.

Articles of the members of the editorial board pass the standard external independent review procedure organized by the editor-in-chief. Members of the editorial board do not participate in the consideration of their own manuscripts.

Reviewers consider an article on the following aspects:

  • does the content of the article correspond to the topic stated in the title?
  • whether the content of the article is consistent with the thematic areas of the journal;
  • whether the content of the article has scientific novelty;
  • whether the article corresponds to the scientific level of the journal;
  • is it expedient to publish the article based on previously published literature on the subject and whether it is interesting to a wide range of readers;
  • what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article; what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The terms of reviewing are determined by the order and the number of manuscripts submitted to the editor. The terms of review by the reviewer of the article start on the day they receive the article. The review is from one to two months.

The review procedure covers all articles submitted to the editorial board with the exception of reviews and informational messages.

The review takes place on a confidentiality basis, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and peculiarities of the review, comments of reviewers and the final publication decision) are not communicated to anyone other than authors and reviewers.

Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article submitted for review, or to use information from the content of the article prior to its publication.

The order of accepting manuscripts

  1. The author submits to the editorial board the article that corresponds to editorial policy of the journal and the requirements related to scientific works, as well as rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not conform to accepted norms are not allowed for further consideration, which is reported to the authors.
  2. Manuscripts submitted to the editorial board will be directed to one and, if necessary, to two reviewers of the study profile. Reviewers are assigned by the editor-in-chief of the journal. By decision of the editor-in-chief (under certain circumstances) the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of the choice of reviewers is decided at the meeting of the editorial board. By the decision of the editor-in-chief, separate articles by prominent scholars, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
  3. For the review of articles, reviewers may act as members of the editorial board of “The Ukrainian Numismatic Annual”, as well as third-party highly skilled professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular field of study.
  4. All manuscripts submitted to the reviewer necessarily determine the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author's text with the help of appropriate software.
  5. The reviewer can not be co-author of the article under review, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree.
  6. After receiving the article for review, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials, based on the relevance of his own skills to the direction of research of the author and the absence of any conflict of interest. In the case of any competing interests, the reviewer must refuse to review and notify the editorial board. The latter should decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
  7. The reviewer fills in a standardized form containing his final conclusions. The reviewer sends to the editorial board a conclusion on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the article's publication. The terms of review in each individual case may vary depending on the conditions, the creation of which is necessary for the most objective evaluation of the degree of value of the manuscript.
  8. The editorial board of the journal e-mails the author a review with the results of the analysis of the article.
  9. If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to substantiate their refutation. By the revised article, the author adds a letter that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for the decision and the preparation of a motivated conclusion about the possibility of publication. The date of aception of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial staff of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and the possibility of publishing the article.
  10. In case of inconsistency with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may direct the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in case of insolvency or unwillingness of the author to take into account the propositions and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer.
  11. The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of publication is taken by the editor-in-chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After deciding to allow the article to be published, the executive editor notifies the author thereof and indicates the expected publication period.
  12. In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publishing the article enters the editorial journal of the magazine for its publication in the order of the procedure and relevance (in some cases, according to the decision of the editor-in-chief, the article may be published in advance, in the next issue of the journal).
  13. The article is approved for publication by the technical editor. Minor corrections of a stylistic or a formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are submitted by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the author's request, the manuscript in the form of a layout of the article is returned to the author for approval.
  14. At the request of the author, the editorial office provides him/her with a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication under the signature of the editor-in-chief.
  15. The author of the article relies on responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article. The author and reviewer are responsible for the reliability of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made and the scientific and practical level of the article.

Reasons for not publishing articles

The reasons for the rejection of the article from publication are the following factors:

  1. Verification of the manuscript of the article in the system did not give a positive result (plagiarism was detected).
  2. The article does not correspond to the branch profile of “The Ukrainian Numismatic Annual”.
  3. The requirements of the standardized approaches to scientific articles, established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international conventions, are not met.
  4. The comments and suggestions of reviewers regarding the discussion issues that had arisen during the review were not taken into account.
  5. The editorial board on the basis of peer review of two reviewers decided to return the author of the manuscript without the right to re-submit it to the editor.

The main reasons for the revision of the article

  1. The article does not contain abstracts, or if they are present, they are not within the requirements for the number of characters and the content.
  2. The structure of the article does not meet the requirements.
  3. The content of the article is not sufficiently detailed for readers to fully understand the approach proposed by the author.
  4. The article does not contain scientific novelty.
  5. The article does not clearly indicate which part of the text or conclusions reflect the innovation in science, in contrast to what is already known.
  6. The article reveals the violation of the copyright of other scientists (interference in their intellectual property, incorrect quotes, lack of references, etc.).
  7. The manuscript does not confirm the reliability of the facts and data presented, without substantiated conclusions.
  8. The list of references does not contain scientific sources, the names of authors that are mentioned in the text of the article.
  9. The article contains theories, concepts, empirical materials, conclusions, etc., which are not fully disclosed and are not supported by the presented data, arguments or information provided.
  10. The article does not meet the norms of language cukture and written speech, as well as the scientific style of presentation of the material.
  11. The list of used sources and references are incorrectly drawn up.