PEER REVIEW POLICY

The “Bulletin of Postgraduate Education: Collection of Scientific Papers. Educational Sciences Series'” ensures an objective and transparent peer-review process for submitted articles. Peer review is aimed at determining the scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the article's content, its compliance with the profile of the Collection of Scientific Papers, and its contribution to the development of pedagogical education and science. The peer-review procedure involves a comprehensive analysis of the value and shortcomings of the material. Articles containing original scientific results and contributing to the solution of topical problems in pedagogical science and educational practice are accepted for publication.

The purpose of the peer-review procedure is to ensure the quality of publications, align the interests of authors, reviewers, readers, the Editorial Board, and the institutions where the research was conducted, while adhering to the principles of academic integrity and international standards.

Types and Stages of Peer Review

Internal peer review. Manuscripts of articles submitted to the Editorial Board are checked by the Editor-in-Chief and the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board regarding the aim, subject matter, and editorial policy of the Collection of Scientific Papers. Manuscripts of articles that do not comply with the subject matter, editorial policy, and standards of the Collection of Scientific Papers are rejected.

The title page or introductory word of the Editor-in-Chief, reviews, reports, accounts, and letters addressed to the Editorial Board are not subject to peer review.

Manuscripts of articles that do not meet the requirements of the Collection of Scientific Papers regarding structure and formatting are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If the author does not respond to the request of the Editorial Board within 30 calendar days, the article is withdrawn from consideration.

Manuscripts of articles in which, after a plagiarism check, a significant percentage of textual borrowings is detected, are returned to the authors for revision. In case signs of plagiarism are detected, the article is returned to the author without the right of resubmission.

External peer review. Articles submitted for publication are subject to double-blind peer review (anonymous for both the reviewer and the author). It is carried out by at least two reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the article. Reviewers can be either members of the Editorial Board or invited experts.

Reviewers must adhere to the best international peer review practices, in particular Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scholarly Communication, Web of Science Academy, and the requirements of this publication.

Reviewers are obliged to notify the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board as soon as possible of any possible conflicts of interest. They must also adhere to the principle of confidentiality when working with the manuscript of the article, in particular, not use and/or reproduce it in whole or in part anywhere, and not disclose information about the Editorial Board's request for review.

Criteria for evaluating articles by reviewers: scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance, validity of the methodology, argumentation of theoretical provisions and conclusions, correctness of experimental data and recommendations. All articles undergo a plagiarism check using specialized software to determine the degree of text uniqueness.

When preparing a review, the reviewer must provide answers in a standard form, after which they draw a conclusion regarding the publication of the article. The reviewer may provide comments to the author regarding specific points of the review or the article, especially if a positive response is not given.

The Editorial Board has the right not to pass on to the author comments that contain a subjective assessment of the manuscript's provisions, insults, or do not meet the established requirements and criteria specified above. Members and the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board act as intermediaries in all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review of the article prior to publication.

If an agreement cannot be reached, the Editorial Board may invite additional reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief has the right to return the review for revision if the reviewer has not complied with the requirements or if the review contains ambiguous remarks. In case of systematic significant remarks to the reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief has the right to exclude the reviewer from the list of persons the publication applies to, and/or report their actions to their affiliated institution.

Reviewers do not perform structural or linguistic-stylistic editing of the manuscript, but, if necessary, they report editorial problems to the authors and the Editorial Board of the Collection of Scientific Papers in the appropriate section of the review.

Reviewer decisions may be as follows:

‒ accept without changes;

‒ accept after minor revision (authors have 14 calendar days to make minor changes according to the reviewers' comments);

‒ accept after major revision (authors have 30 calendar days for significant revision of the manuscript);

‒ reject with a proposal for resubmission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be invited to resubmit the article after a substantial revision of the content);

‒ reject (the article is rejected without the right of resubmission if it has serious flaws and/or does not contain original scientific results).

If the article can be accepted on the condition of revision, it is returned to the author along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improving the article and the recommendations of the Editorial Board, if any.

The author resubmits the revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers' remarks. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article or in a special table. The Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board directly evaluates the quality of the changes or forwards the article to the reviewers for re-evaluation.

Reviewers must express their opinion clearly and reasonably, and be polite and constructive in their recommendations. The author must respond to all of the reviewer's comments according to the points of the review.

The general time limit for peer review cannot exceed 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article by the reviewer. A maximum of two reviews of a manuscript is allowed.

The Editorial Board takes into account the reviewers' comments, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, if necessary, in agreement with the members of the Editorial Board.

The publication of the “Bulletin of Postgraduate Education: Collection of Scientific Papers. Educational Sciences Series'” s approved for printing by the Academic Council of the State Higher Education Institution "University of Educational Management" of the NAES of Ukraine.