All submissions to the editorial board of the scientific journal “Diplomatic Ukraine” undergo a double-blind review process
: authors do not know the names of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not known the names of the authors. The review process is carried out by the members of the editorial board in the following order:
- Materials are first reviewed by the Technical Editor, who checks the accuracy of the layout of the text and references, the presence of all structural elements in the article (in the case of incorrect layout, the manuscript is sent back for revision). The Technical Editor encrypts the article and transmits it to the Senior Editor no later than ten days after receiving the material.
- Within ten days, Senior Editor assigns the article to a reviewer, who has a sufficient level of expertise in the topic of the manuscript. If the selected reviewer is not convinced that their qualification is in line with the level presented in the manuscript, they should return the it to the Senior Editor for reassignment.
- Within two weeks, the reviewer evaluates the manuscript.
The reviewer’s report must determine:
- whether the topic of the article is relevant and has theoretical and practical value;
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic indicated in the title;
- whether the article fits the requirement of scientific novelty;
- whether the academic style and inner logic of the manuscript are maintained, and the conclusions are well articulated;
- whether the annotation reflects the study;
- whether the author complied with the rules of academic integrity (or withstood plagiarism).
- After examining the manuscript, the reviewer submits their report to the Senior Editor and it must contain one of the following provisions:
- the article meets high scientific level, requirements, it can be recommended for publication;
- the article has minor flaws (punctuation, spelling mistakes), it can be recommended for publication after editing;
- the article has significant drawbacks, in particular, it does not fit the requirement of scientific novelty or has practical and theoretical value, so it cannot be recommended for publication;
- the evidences of a violation of the principles of academic integrity (plagiarism, self-plagiarism) and copyright are detected, so the article is not recommended for publication.
- The Senior Editor, on the basis of the evaluation of the reviewers, makes a decision to publish or reject the article, and consequently notifies the Technical Editor.
- The Technical Editor informs the authors of the results of the peer review: the article is accepted for publication in the current issue of the scientific yearbook; the article will not be published for reasons given by the reviewer. The Technical Editor then forms the content of the current issue and submits it to the publisher.
- Authors who have been advised to revise the article should submit an updated version no later than one week after notification. The Senior Editor decides whether to recommend a revised article for publication.
- Authors, whose materials were rejected, have the right to see the reviewer’s report, and to do so should apply to the editorial office. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s report, they have the right to submit a reasoned answer to the working group of the editorial board for a review.
- Authors who do not adhere to the rules and principles of academic virtue are not allowed to submit materials for publication in the scientific yearbook the following year.
- Privacy breach is possible in case of a report of inaccuracy or falsification of material, in all other cases its preservation is obligatory.
Materials aimed at inciting religious, interracial, inter-ethnic hatred or discrimination in any form are not acceptable for publication.