General terms
All materials submitted to the editorial office undergo mandatory review in order to select articles that meet the scientific, literary and ethical standards of the Bulletin of the National Defence University of Ukraine.
Reviews are carried out by members of the editorial board and external independent experts. The journal uses double-blind peer review:
- reviewers do not know the personal details of the authors;
- authors do not know the personal details of the reviewers.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of articles, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of materials and to determine their compliance with the requirements of the journal.
Requirements for reviewers
Doctors of Science and leading experts in the relevant field of research are involved in peer review.
Reviewers cannot be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and must not have a conflict of interest.
In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board and refuse to evaluate the article.
Primary review
The preliminary review is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or his/her deputy.
If the Editor-in-Chief is the author or has a personal interest, the review is conducted by another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.
Materials that do not meet the publication requirements or the subject matter of the journal are not considered.
All articles are checked for plagiarism. The acceptable level of text similarity is no more than 15% of the total volume of the article.
Main review
Anonymised manuscripts are sent to one member of the editorial board and two external independent reviewers.
External reviewers receive an anonymised text of the article and a standard review form by email.
Reviewers evaluate the following aspects:
- the relevance of the article's content to the topic stated in the title;
- the relevance and novelty of the subject matter;
- the validity of scientific conclusions and practical significance;
- quality of presentation and accessibility to a wide range of readers;
- compliance with academic and ethical principles.
Review results
In the standard form, reviewers choose one of the following options:
1. recommend the article for publication;
2. recommend for publication after minor revisions;
3. recommend for publication after substantial revisions;
4. do not recommend for publication.
In case of rejection or request for revision, the reviewer provides a written reasoned explanation.
• Revised articles undergo re-review.
• Revision does not guarantee acceptance of the article: if the changes are deemed unsatisfactory, the article is rejected.
• Reviews are kept by the editorial office for three years.
Terms
• Typical expert review period: 2-4 weeks.
• Average time to first decision: 4-8 weeks.
Final decision
The Editor-in-Chief analyses the reviews and makes a final decision based on the experts' conclusions.
• If the article is submitted by the Editor-in-Chief himself, his family or colleagues, the decision is made by the deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial board.
• The final decision on the composition of the printed issue is approved by the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council of the National University of Defence of Ukraine.
Additional provisions
• Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo literary and technical editing. Minor stylistic corrections may be made by the editor without consulting the author.
• Authors are responsible for the scientific and practical level of their works, the accuracy of facts and data, and compliance with copyright laws.
STANDARD REVIEW FORM
