Peer Review Procedure

The review of articles submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board is carried out in accordance with the following “Regulations on Peer Review.”

                                                                          REGULATIONS
                                                        on the Peer Review of Articles
                     submitted to the Editorial Board of the scholarly journal Political Life

  1. This regulation establishes the procedure for the peer review of articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the scientific and practical journal Political Life (hereinafter referred to as the Journal).
  2. In these regulations, the following terms are used with the meanings indicated below:
  • Author – an individual or a group of individuals (a team of authors) who, based on the results of a scientific study, have prepared a scholarly article and submitted it to the Editorial Board of the journal for consideration.
  • Executive Secretary – a person who organizes work related to planning and to the timely and high-quality preparation of journal materials for publication.
  • Responsible Editor – the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief who makes final decisions regarding the publication of the current issue of the journal.
  • Editorial Board – the governing body of the journal that carries out a set of activities related to the selection of materials and the publication of the journal.
  • Reviewer – a specialist who conducts a scholarly evaluation of articles submitted to the journal in order to determine the possibility of their publication. A reviewer may be a person conducting research in the field of political science who, within the three years preceding the review, has at least one publication in journals included in the List of Scientific Publications approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine or in foreign journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus, or who has authored monographs or chapters in monographs published by international publishers classified in categories “A,” “B,” or “C” according to the classification of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
  • Peer review – the procedure of reviewing and expert evaluation of articles submitted to the journal by reviewers in order to determine their scientific and theoretical level and their compliance with the editorial requirements established for publications in the journal.
  1. All scholarly articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal are subject to peer review.
  2. The reviewers who will conduct the peer review of a scientific article are selected by the Responsible Editor, taking into account the subject matter of the article and the professional interests of potential reviewers.
  3. When conducting the scholarly evaluation of articles, reviewers must adhere to the ethical requirements set forth in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and must remain максимально objective and impartial.

    Procedure for the Peer Review of Articles

    1. The author submits an article to the Editorial Board of the journal prepared in accordance with the journal’s editorial requirements. An article that does not comply with the requirements specified on the journal’s website is not registered and is not admitted for further peer review; the author of the article is notified accordingly.
    2. Prior to the peer review process, the journal’s Executive Secretary:

– determines the level of originality of the author’s text using plagiarism detection software. If the percentage of originality of the article is less than 80%, the article is not admitted for further peer review and is returned to the author;
– performs the coding of the article (assigning a registration number and anonymizing the author’s personal data).

3. The anonymized article is sent by e-mail to the reviewer selected by the Executive Secretary.

4. Within 5 calendar days from the date of receiving the article, the reviewer must assess the possibility of reviewing the manuscript, taking into account their own qualifications, the subject matter of the article, and the absence of any conflict of interest, and inform the Responsible Editor of the journal accordingly. In the event of a conflict of interest or the inability to conduct the review, the Executive Secretary decides on the appointment of another reviewer.

5. Within 30 calendar days from the date of receiving the article, the reviewer provides a conclusion regarding the possibility of publishing the article in the journal. If necessary, the review period may be extended to 45 days, of which the reviewer must inform the Responsible Editor.

6. The peer review procedure is anonymous for both the authors and the reviewers (blind review). Communication between the authors and reviewers is carried out via e-mail through the Executive Secretary.

7. Based on the results of the peer review, the reviewer completes a standardized review form (attached to these Regulations) and selects one of the following conclusions:

  • recommend the article for publication;
  • return the article for revision;
  • do not recommend the article for publication.

The completed review form is submitted to the Executive Secretary of the journal in either paper or electronic form (as a photo or scanned copy).

8. In the event of a positive conclusion, “recommend the article for publication,” the article is included in the editorial portfolio of the next issue of the journal, and the Executive Secretary informs the author of the article by e-mail.

9. If the reviewer provides a conclusion recommending revision of the article, the Executive Secretary sends the manuscript back to the author for revision. The message includes a list of the reviewer’s comments, questions, and remarks. The standard period for revising the article should not exceed 10 calendar days from the date the author receives the manuscript. In specific cases, the exact revision period may be adjusted by the Executive Secretary upon a justified request from the author.

10. The author must attach to the revised version of the article a letter containing responses to the reviewer’s comments and questions, as well as a detailed description of all changes made to the content of the article.

11. The revised version of the article is resubmitted to the reviewer for evaluation. Within 15 days from the date of receiving the revised article, the reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:

  • recommend the article for publication;
  • do not recommend the article for publication.

    12. If the author of the article disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, they have the right to submit a reasoned response to the Editorial Board of the journal. In such cases, the article is additionally considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board, which examines the views of both the reviewer and the author. The Editorial Board may also send the article for additional review to another reviewer. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article in the event that the author is unable or unwilling to address the reviewer’s comments. The author of the article is notified separately of any decision taken.
  1. All articles that have successfully passed the peer review process and have been accepted for publication undergo copyediting. Minor stylistic corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made without the author’s approval. At the author’s request, the final layout of the article with editorial corrections may be sent to the author for approval. The author must inform the editorial office of their approval of the provided version of the article or indicate any shortcomings of the copyediting within 5 days from the moment the edited version is received.

 

  1. From among the articles that have passed peer review and have been processed by the journal’s copyeditors and technical editors, the next issue of the journal is compiled. The issue is signed by the Editor-in-Chief and recommended for publication by a decision of the Academic Council of Vasyl Stus Donetsk National University.

 

  1. Responsibility for compliance with the standards of publication ethics rests with the author of the article. The author is also responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions drawn, and the scientific and theoretical quality of the article.