Peer review process

The process of reviewing submitted to the collection «Socium. Document. Communication» 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, to correspond to their profile of the collection, to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the publication, 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.

In Collection the regulation of double «blind» (anonymous) criticizing is observed: the authors are not revealed to the names of reviewers, the reviewers are not revealed to the names of authors. Co-operation of reviewers and authors is carried out only through the members of release.

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 article corresponds to the topic of the collection;
  • whether the annotation corresponds to the research topic, the purpose, content and results of the publication;
  • whether the research is relevant enough;
  • whether the purpose of the study is clearly defined;
  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • whether the content of the article has scientific novelty;
  • whether the results of the study are indicative and sufficient;
  • whether the findings are consistent with the purpose of the publication;
  • whether the citation is justified when citing sources;
  • whether the article meets the requirements for formatting the collection;
  • what exactly are the positives, as well as the shortcomings of the article, which corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The terms of review are determined by the order and the number of submitted manuscripts.

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.

Order of passing of manuscripts

  1. An author gives to the editorial college the article which answers the requirements of the policy of collection of scientific works «Socium. Communication», and also to the rules of preparation of articles to the edition. Manuscripts which do not answer the accepted requirements are not registered and shut out to further consideration, about what it is revealed to their authors.
  2. Manuscripts submitted to the editorial board shall be forwarded to one reviewer, if necessary, to two reviewers. Appoints the reviewers Editor-in-Chief of the collection. By the 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 selection of reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, some articles by eminent scientists as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
  3. For reviewing articles, they may act as members of the editorial board of the collection «Socium. Document. Communication», as well as third-party highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific area.
  4. All manuscripts submitted to a reviewer are required to determine the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author’s text using the appropriate software.
  5. A reviewer may not be a co-author of a peer-reviewed article, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree.
  6. Upon receipt of the article for review, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials, based on the suitability of the author’s own area of ​​research, and the absence of any conflict of interest. In case of any competing interests, the reviewer should refuse reviewing and inform the editorial board. The latter should decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
  7. The reviewer fills in a standardized form that contains his summary conclusions. The reviewer sends to the edition of the collection a conclusion about the relevance or inappropriateness of printing the article. The timing of peer review may vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the conditions required to evaluate the value of the manuscript as objectively as possible.
  8. The editorial board of the collection by e-mail sends the author a review with the results of the analysis of the article.
  9. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments in the preparation of the updated version of the article or to substantiate them. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which answers all the comments and explains all the changes that have been made to the article. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer for a decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date on which the article was accepted for publication is the date of receipt by the reviewer of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.
  10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to submit a reasoned answer to the editorial board. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may refer the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the articles in the event of the author’s inability or unwillingness to consider the wishes and comments of the 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 expediency of publication shall be taken by the editor-in-chief (or, on his or her behalf, by a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After the decision is made to allow the article to be published, the responsible secretary informs the author and specifies the expected term of publication.
  12. In case of a positive decision on the possibility of publishing an article, it is submitted to the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in the order and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of the ordinary, in the nearest issue of the journal).
  13. The article approved for publication shall be submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by a technical editor without the author’s agreement. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscripts in the form of a layout of the article are returned to the author for approval.
  14. At the request of the author, the editorial board shall provide him with a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication under the signature of the Editor-in-Chief.
  15. Responsibility for copyright infringement and failure to comply with existing standards in the material of the article rests with the author of the article. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data provided, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the scientific and practical level of the article.

Reasons of refuse for publication of the articles

Grounds for declining of an article for publication make the next factors:

  1. Verification of manuscript of the article in the system (Unicheck) did not give a positive result.
  2. The article does not correspond the branch type of the collection of scientific works «Socium. Communication».
  3. The article does not correspond the requirements, foreseen legislatively by standardized approaches to scientific articles set by MES of Ukraine and by international conventions.
  4. The remarks and wishes of reviewers concerning debatable questions which arose up at criticizing are not taken into account.

On the basis of expert estimation of two reviewers the editorial college made a decision about returning to the author of a manuscript without a right for its resubmitting in a release.

Basic grounds for finishing off the article

  1. The article does not contain summary in Ukrainian, Russian and English languages, or in case of its presence it does not answer the set requirements as to the amount of signs.
  2. The structure of the article does not answer requirements (reference).
  3. A table of article contents is not enough detailed for readers, that they to a full degree were able to understand the approach, offered by an author.
  4. The article does not contain a scientific novelty.
  5. In the article it is not marked clearly, what part of text or conclusions represents an innovation in science, unlike that it is already known.
  6. If any breaking of the author’s rights of other scientists have been revealed (interference in their intellectual ownership, rudeness in citations, absence of references etc.).
  7. The manuscript does not confirm the adequacy of the given facts and dates, and unsubstantiated conclusions.
  8. The list of literature does not contain scientific sources, the last names of authors which are remembered in text of the article.
  9. The article contains theories, conceptions, conclusions and others like that, which are fully indehiscent and not confirmed by the presented data, arguments or given information.
  10. The article does not correspond the norms of culture and oral and writing speech.
  11. Transliteration of the list of used literature is absent.
  12. Literature is incorrectly designed in accordance with DSTU 2015.