Peer Review

Review procedure.

Type of review. 
The journal uses a double-blind peer review procedure, in which neither the authors know the identities of the reviewers, nor the reviewers know the identities of the authors.

All articles sent to the editorial board are subject to a review procedure. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal of scientific works and provides for a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article. Reviewing contributes to the strict selection of author's manuscripts for publication and making specific recommendations regarding them. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current problems and tasks are accepted for publication. The editorial board has determined the following procedure for reviewing manuscripts:

1. The materials sent to the editorial board by e-mail are checked for compliance with the magazine's profile and the rules for preparing articles, and are checked for plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet the topic or requirements, have signs of plagiarism, are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, about which the editorial board notifies the authors.

2. The Editorial Board decides on the possibility of publishing articles only after the completion of the review procedure. The function of appointing reviewers is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. He selects the candidates of two independent reviewers in accordance with the subject matter of the article from among third-party highly qualified specialists in this field. They are not members of the journal's editorial board and have no conflict of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject matter of the reviewed materials and have the closest scientific specialization to the topic of the article.

3. The editor-in-chief personally sends the articles to the reviewers and receives the review texts from them. Interaction between the editor-in-chief (responsible secretary) and reviewers takes place through e-mail correspondence.

4. The review of the article is carried out according to the following criteria:

  1. Correspondence of the title and content of the article to the issues of the magazine;
  2. Correspondence of the title of the article with the content of the presented material;
  3. Correspondence of the annotations to the content of the presented material;
  4. Degree of scientific novelty;
  5. Completeness and representativeness of the research source base;
  6. Taking into account modern research on the problem;
  7. The validity of scientific statements and conclusions;
  8. Literacy and style of presentation of the material;
  9. Availability of main structural elements: UDC index; information about author; title of the article; annotations (at least 1800 characters) and keywords (3-8) in Ukrainian and English; text of the article (12-24 pages); list of sources and literature used (15-25); preparation of the list of used sources and literature according to APA (American Psychological Association), including "References";
  10. Compliance with the requirements for the structure of the article: justification of the relevance of the research problem; analysis of recent research and publications on the topic; purpose of the article; research material and methods; research results; discussion; research conclusions and prospects for further research;
  11. Compliance with technical requirements for the design of the article: font size; line spacing, paragraph indentation; references to sources and literature in the text; drawing up a list of sources and literature.

5. In the case of the reviewer's recommendations for making corrections to the prepared manuscript, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take the comments into account when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The corrected version is resubmitted to the reviewer to make a decision and prepare a motivated opinion on the possibility of publication. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article in the event of the author's inability or unwillingness to take into account the recommendations and comments of the reviewers.

6. After receiving positive reviews, the manuscript is sent for literary and technical editing.

7. If the reviewers' evaluations of some articles differ, the editorial board makes a special decision: accept/reject these articles or appoint new reviewers. If the article is rejected, the Editorial Board informs the author by e-mail about the reasons for rejection. Rejected articles cannot be considered again.

8. The final decision regarding the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the editor-in-chief in accordance with the recommendations of the responsible secretary of the journal. If the article is accepted for publication, the author is notified of a positive decision with an indication of the estimated date of publication of the journal of scientific works.

9. Reviewing time frame. The standard term for the initial review is approximately 3-4 weeks from the moment the manuscript is sent to the reviewers. If the author needs to make further revisions, subsequent rounds of review may last an additional 2-3 weeks.

10. The recommendation regarding the publication of the next issue of the magazine (with an indication of the content) is made by the Academic Council of the Mykhailo Kotsyubynsky Vinnytsia State Pedagogical University and recorded in the corresponding protocol.

11. The process of reviewing articles is accompanied by the use of software that provides the ability to confirm communication between the author, editor and reviewer, which is a prerequisite for compliance with standards of academic integrity.