Peer review process

The process of reviewing submitted to the collection «History of Science and Biography Studies» of scientific articles is focused on revealing the degree of their value, originality, relevance and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of the collection, the suitability of the manuscript for its publication; is focused on improving the quality of printed matter, overcoming bias and inappropriateness when rejecting or accepting articles.

The purpose of reviewing is to establish the quality standards of the author’s manuscripts, their correspondence to profile of the collection, to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the edition, by evaluating the materials by highly qualified experts. In addition, the purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor research practices and to ensure that the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted are consistent and maintained.

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

The articles of the Editorial Board members are subject to the standard procedure of external independent review organized by the Editor-in-Chief. The members of the editorial board do not participate in the review of their own manuscripts.

Reviewers review the article on the following aspects:

• whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
• whether the content of the article corresponds to the thematic areas of the collection;
• whether the content of the article has scientific novelty; whether the article corresponds to the scientific level of the collection;
• whether the publication of the article is appropriate taking into account the previously published literature on this issue and whether it is interesting for a wide range of readers;
• what are the specific positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The review deadlines are determined by the order and number of manuscripts submitted to the editorial office.

All articles submitted to the editorial board, except for reviews and informational reports, go through the review process.

Reviewing takes place on a confidential basis, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of reviewing, comments of reviewers and final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone but the authors and reviewers.

Reviewers are not allowed to make a copy of the article submitted for review or use the information contained in the content of the article prior to its publication.

The order of processing of manuscripts

1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the editorial policy of the collection and the requirements for scientific works, as well as the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted standards are not allowed for further consideration, and the authors are notified.
2. Manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent to one, if necessary, two reviewers according to the research profile. The reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief of the electronic scientific professional publication. 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 selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. By decision of the editor-in-chief, individual articles by prominent scientists, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
3. To review articles, reviewers can be either members of the editorial board of the collection "History of Science and Biographical Studies" or external highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field.
4. In all manuscripts submitted to the reviewer, the degree of originality of the author's text must be determined using appropriate software. 
5. A reviewer cannot be a co-author of the article being reviewed, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree.
6. After receiving the article for consideration, the reviewer assesses the possibility of reviewing the materials, based on the correspondence of his own qualifications to the author's research field and the absence of any conflict of interest. In the event of any competing interests, the reviewer must refuse to review and notify the editorial board. The latter must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
7. The reviewer fills out a standardized form containing his final conclusions. The reviewer sends the editorial office of the collection a conclusion on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of placing the article in the collection. The terms of review in each individual case may vary depending on the conditions, the creation of which is necessary for the most objective assessment of the degree of value of the manuscript.
8. The editorial office of the collection sends the author a review by e-mail 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 a proposal to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The author adds a letter to the revised article containing responses to all comments and explaining all changes that were made to the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for a decision and preparation of a motivated conclusion on the possibility of placing materials in an electronic scientific professional publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is considered the date of receipt by the editorial office of a positive conclusion from the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of including the article.
10. In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office of the electronic scientific professional publication. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in the event of the author's inability or unwillingness to take into account the wishes and comments of the reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may provide the article to another reviewer.
11. The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of including the article in the collection is made by the editor-in-chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board), and if necessary, by a meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After making a decision to place the article in the electronic scientific professional publication, the executive secretary informs the author about this and indicates the expected date of publication of the materials.
12. In case of a positive decision, the article is submitted to the editorial portfolio of the collection for inclusion in the order of priority and taking into account its relevance (in some cases, by decision of the editorial board, the article may be published out of turn, in the nearest issue of the collection).
13. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without agreement with the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, manuscripts in the form of a layout of the article may be provided to the author for approval.
14. At the author's request, the editorial office provides him with a certificate of inclusion of the article in the collection signed by the editor-in-chief.
15. Responsibility for violation of copyright and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article lies with the author of the article. Responsibility for the reliability of the facts and data provided, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the scientific and practical level of the article lies with the author and the reviewer.

Reasons for refusing to include articles in an electronic scientific professional publication

The following factors are grounds for rejecting an article:

1. Checking 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 industry profile of the collection of scientific articles «History of Science and Biography Studies».
3. The article does not meet the requirements stipulated by standardized approaches to scientific articles established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international conventions.
4. The comments and wishes of the reviewers regarding discussion issues that arose during the review were not taken into account.
5. The editorial board, based on the expert assessment of two reviewers, decided to return the manuscript to the author without the right to resubmit it to the editorial office.

The main reasons for revising the article

1. The article does not contain summaries, or if they are present, they do not meet the established requirements in terms of the number of characters and content.
2. The structure of the article does not meet the requirements.
3. The content of the article is not detailed enough 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 state which part of the text or conclusions reflects innovation in science, as opposed to what is already known.
6. The article reveals violations of the copyrights of other scientists (interference with their intellectual property, incorrect citations, lack of references, etc.).
7. The manuscript does not confirm the reliability of the facts and data provided, and the conclusions are not substantiated.
8. The list of references does not contain scientific sources whose authors' names are mentioned in the text of the article.
9. The article contains theories, concepts, conclusions, etc. that are not fully disclosed and are not confirmed by the presented data, arguments, or information provided.
10. The article does not comply with the norms of language and written culture, as well as the scientific style of presenting the material.
11. The list of sources and literature used is incorrectly formatted.