Reviewing policy

In the journal Precarpathian Bulletin of Shevchenko Scientific Society. Number, peer review is a mandatory procedure that ensures the scientific quality of publications and compliance with academic and ethical standards. The main objective is to select the best research, assess its novelty and significance, and verify compliance with editorial requirements. Reviewers are expected to be impartial and to adhere to the principles set out in the section on Publication Ethics.

The journal employs a ‘blind’ peer review system, which is standard practice in mathematical journals: authors do not know who is evaluating their work, but reviewers have information about the authors. Only those manuscripts that correspond to the journal’s subject area, are properly formatted, and have passed an initial check by the editorial office are accepted for review.

The preliminary review is carried out by the editor-in-chief or a member of the editorial board with expertise in the article’s subject area. If there is a conflict of interest (authorship, co-authorship, family or professional ties), the review is assigned to another member of the editorial board.

The manuscript is then sent to a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant academic field (to oversee the peer review process; in exceptional cases and in the absence of a conflict of interest, a member of the editorial board may also act as a reviewer), as well as to independent experts from Ukraine or abroad. Reviewers may only be experienced researchers who specialise in the chosen field and have no conflict of interest.

During the review process, reviewers assess whether the content matches the title, the relevance and novelty of the topic, the significance of the findings, and the value of the material to the academic community. Based on their findings, they choose one of the following options: accept for publication; accept after minor revisions; recommend revision with significant changes; reject. In the event of rejection or the need for revisions, a written justification is provided.

Authors receive the editorial decision along with the reviews, but without the reviewers’ names being disclosed. Revised articles may be resubmitted for assessment; however, even after revision, acceptance of the material is not guaranteed.

The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the experts’ conclusions. If the editor-in-chief is the author of the article or has a conflict of interest, the decision is made by another member of the editorial board. All reviews are stored in the journal’s website system. The editorial board typically allows two external reviewers three months to write their reviews from the date of receiving consent to review. Reviewers have the right to request an extension of the review deadline.