{"id":171,"date":"2019-02-03T10:03:32","date_gmt":"2019-02-03T10:03:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lingstud.od.ua\/?page_id=171"},"modified":"2026-04-26T11:41:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-26T11:41:09","slug":"retsenzuvannia","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.lingstud.od.ua\/en\/retsenzuvannia\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing papers"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reviewing papers, submitted to the editorial board of the print edition
\n\"Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences<\/b>\"<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The order of reviewing the manuscripts predetermines the procedure of monitoring the manuscripts of scientific articles, presented by contributors to the collection of scientific works \"Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences<\/strong><\/span>\"<\/strong> (further <\/span>named<\/span> Collection). <\/span>This procedure is conditioned by the set standards, determining the quality of the published materials. <\/span>The process of the analysis of scientific articles is aimed at establishing the degree of their value, originality, actuality and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of Collection, correspondence of a manuscript to the compliance with the requirements of the Committee on ethics in publications \u2013\u00a0Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)<\/a>\u00a0and grounded by the experience of the leading scientific concords. It is aimed at improving the quality of the printed matters, overcoming the prejudice and injustice in the matter of rejecting or accepting the articles for publication.<\/span><\/p>\n

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process<\/strong>: authors are not informed of the reviewers\u2019 identities, and reviewers are not informed of the authors\u2019 identities. Communication between reviewers and authors is conducted exclusively through authorized members of the editorial board.<\/span><\/p>\n

The journal's policy as to the ethic regulations, guiding the subjects of the reviewing\u00a0<\/b>process,<\/b>\u00a0is formulated as follows:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Qualification.\u00a0<\/i>If the reviewer is uncertain\u00a0as to\u00a0the level\u00a0of qualification\u00a0and the compliance of the profile heshe should reject reviewing the paper.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Objectivity.\u00a0<\/i>The goal of reviewing is objective assessment of the quality of the presented article and the determination of the degree of its compliance with the scientific, literary and ethic standards.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. The copyright.\u00a0<\/i>To ensure the\u00a0safety\u00a0of the contributors' copyright the reviewer is not allowed to use the obtained proofs and conclusions without the contributor's prior consent.<\/span><\/li>\n
  4. Conflict-of-interests.\u00a0<\/i>In case of conflict\u00a0of interest between the results of the research and the reviewer's ideas or in case\u00a0of personal\u00a0or professional relationship of both parties, which may influence the reviewer's decision, the latter should return the article due to the conflict of interests.<\/span><\/li>\n
  5. Confidentiality.\u00a0<\/i>The high-priority requirement is confidentiality of the reviewed article, due to which the reviewer is not allowed\u00a0either\u00a0to disclose the data\u00a0of\u00a0the article or\u00a0to\u00a0discuss the conclusions prior to their publication (except for the cases when the reviewer requires specific consultation after\u00a0getting\u00a0the permission of the editorial board).<\/span><\/li>\n
  6. Trustworthiness.\u00a0<\/i>The accusation of plagiarism requires from the reviewer the adequate and grounded trustworthiness of his conclusions. Any statement of plagiarism or prejudiced citation must be supplied with the corresponding reference.<\/span><\/li>\n
  7. Cooperation.\u00a0<\/i>In case\u00a0of the reviewer's doubts as\u00a0to\u00a0plagiarism, authorship or falsification of the data heshe must turn to the editorial board with the request for\u00a0a\u00a0collective\u00a0analysis\u00a0of the original article.<\/span><\/li>\n
  8. The principle of the fair game.\u00a0<\/i>As the reviewer must highlight any cases of insufficient citation of other scientific works in the field of the reviewed article, the criticism of insufficient citation of the reviewer's works should be identified as biased.<\/span><\/li>\n
  9. Disciplinary terms.\u00a0<\/i>Periodicity of the\u00a0scientific journal requires from the reviewer timeliness of reviewing the article\u00a0and respect towards\u00a0the contributors.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The information about the paper (the content, the process of reviewing, the reviewer's criticism\u00a0and\u00a0the final decision) is revealed only to the editorial board members of the Collection, the Contributor and Reviewers.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The reviews are submitted only to the established editorial board members of the Collection and the Contributor.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The terms of reviewing are determined by the order and quantity of the papers sent to the editorship.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Positive reviews, which assure the possibility of admitting the articles for publication, are made public on the sittings of International Editorial Council and Editorship.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The term of reviewing the article is from one to two months.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Order of<\/b>\u00a0working with\u00a0<\/b>manuscripts<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

    1. Articles, where the subject of the research is absent, do not comply with the Collection's topicality and are not delivered for review. The information about refusal and its further publication is sent to the author.<\/span><\/p>\n

    2. An author presents to the editorial board the article complying with the requirements of the policy of the Collection of scientific works and meeting the requirements of articles correspondence to the rules of the issue. Manuscripts which do not comply with the accepted requirements are not registered and are denied further consideration, the latter being revealed to the authors.<\/span><\/p>\n

    3. The unique registration code, providing the author\u2019s anonymity in the review, is appropriated to a presented manuscript that is intended to be published in the Collection.<\/span><\/p>\n

    4. In all manuscripts sent for reviewing, the degree of uniqueness and originality of the authorial text is necessarily determined by means of the corresponding software.<\/span><\/p>\n

    5. In case of compliance of the manuscript with the requirements of the Collection's policy and the terms of preparing the articles for the edition, as well as in case of positive result of verification in the system Plagiarist the manuscript is sent for examination to a specialist in the corresponding field of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Results of reviewing<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Upon the author\u2019s request, the editorial office informs the author of the editorial board\u2019s decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript for publication. The possible decisions are as follows: 1) accepted for publication in its submitted form; 2) accepted for publication subject to revisions by the author, taking into account the reviewer\u2019s comments and suggestions; 3) additional peer review required, with the appointment of another reviewer after the author revises the manuscript in accordance with the comments and suggestions provided by the previous reviewer; 4) rejected.<\/span><\/p>\n

    If the review contains comments indicating the need for revision of the manuscript<\/em> (i.e., the introduction of specific corrections), the manuscript is returned to the author for improvement and resubmission of a revised version. If the author disagrees with the reviewer\u2019s comments, they may provide a reasoned and polite rebuttal, addressing the identified shortcomings or justifying those aspects of the manuscript that the reviewer considered inappropriate or unjustified. When submitting the revised manuscript, the author must include a response letter (taking into account the reviewer\u2019s comments), which provides detailed replies to all remarks and explanations of the changes made. The revised version of the manuscript is then resubmitted to the reviewer for a further decision and, if the reviewer agrees with the author\u2019s revisions, for the preparation of a reasoned recommendation regarding its suitability for publication.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The editorial board reserves the right to carry out scientific and literary editing of the manuscript content in agreement with the author. Minor corrections of a lexical-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, linguistic-stylistic, or formal-technical nature that do not affect the quality of the manuscript content may be made by the technical editor without the author\u2019s approval. If clarification of specific issues is required or at the author\u2019s request, the manuscript may be returned to the author in the form of a proof layout for approval.<\/span><\/p>\n

    *]:pointer-events-auto [content-visibility:auto] supports-[content-visibility:auto]:[contain-intrinsic-size:auto_100lvh] R6Vx5W_threadScrollVars scroll-mb-[calc(var(--scroll-root-safe-area-inset-bottom,0px)+var(--thread-response-height))] scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]\" dir=\"auto\" data-turn-id=\"request-WEB:2fb93b5e-ea46-4531-9952-0d8acd510a62-12\" data-testid=\"conversation-turn-26\" data-scroll-anchor=\"false\" data-turn=\"assistant\"><\/p>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    \n

    Upon the author\u2019s request, the Editorial Office provides a certificate confirming the acceptance of the article for publication, signed by the Editor-in-Chief.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The date of acceptance of a manuscript for publication is considered to be the date of the editorial board\u2019s decision regarding the justification for publishing the article in a particular issue of the journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

    The grounds for rejecting a manuscript for publication include the following factors:<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n

    \n

    1. The verification of the manuscript by means of the corresponding software (Detector Plagiarist, Antiplagiat, eTXT) did not demonstrate positive result (plagiarism has been revealed).<\/span><\/p>\n

    2. The article doesn't comply with the scientific profile of the collection of scientific works.<\/span><\/p>\n

    3. The terms, corresponding to the standards of scientific publications established by Ministry of Education of Ukraine and international conventions have been violated.<\/span><\/p>\n

    4. The reviewers' recommendations and criticism on polemic issues, that aroused while reviewing, have not been taken into account.<\/span><\/p>\n

    5. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Ethic actions of the author (-ors) at the repeated consideration of the article and answers on the remarks of a reviewer<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    After the scientific retest of your article\u00a0when preparing the\u00a0answer\u00a0on reviewers\u2019 remarks, please:<\/span><\/p>\n