At the request of the Author the Editorial Board informs the Author about its decision to accept the article for publication. The decisions could be as follows:
1) to recommend the article for publishing in the author’s version;
2) to recommend the article for publishing after introducing some correction, accepting the remarks and proposals of the reviewer;
3) to recommend additional reviewing and to appoint another reviewer after the Author has introduced the necessary corrections taking into consideration the remarks and proposals, which were done by the reviewer;
4) to reject the article.
- If in a review there are remarks with a suggestion to improve the article (to bring some corrections), the article is sent to the author for its improvement and presentation of the renewed variant. If the Author does not agree to correct the noted defects he should submit the motivation of the authorial position concerning the positions which were perceived by the reviewer as inappropriate and inadvisable. To the renewed article the author attaches a letter which contains answers to all the remarks of the reviewer and explanations to the alterations made.
- The editorial board reserves the right to literal and scientific improvement of the article after the author's consent. The minor corrections of lexical and semantic, punctual and grammatical, stylistic and technical character, not affecting the quality of the article content, are made by the technical editor without the author's prior consent. In case of necessity to settle some separate matters arising in course of work or in connection with the author's wish, the latter are sent to him\her for approval.
- At the author's request the editorship gives him a certificate which reads that the article is accepted for publication; the document is signed by the Editor-in-Chief.
- The date of the article's acceptance for publication is the date when the Editorial Board decides to publish the article in a certain issue of the scientific edition.
The reasons for rejecting the article are the following:
- The verification of the manuscript by means of the corresponding software (Detector Plagiarist, Antiplagiat, eTXT) did not demonstrate positive result (plagiarism has been revealed).
- The article doesn't comply with the scientific profile of the collection of scientific works.
- The terms, corresponding to the standards of scientific publications established by Ministry of Education of Ukraine and international conventions have been violated.
- The reviewers' recommendations and criticism on polemic issues, that aroused while reviewing, have not been taken into account.
- The Editorial Board's passes on the verdict on the basis of the expert assessment of the two reviewers to return the manuscript to the author with no right either for repeated reviewing or for presenting the article to publication.