The procedure for reviewing manuscript articles in the journal «Вісник Вінницького національного медичного університету / Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University»
- Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal «Вісник Вінницького національного медичного університету / Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University» and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.
- In the Journal «Вісник Вінницького національного медичного університету / Reports of Vinnytsia National Medical University» , the principle of Double-blind review (double-blind (anonymous) review) has been applied to ensure confidentiality.)
- the author/authors personal information is not disclosed to the reviewer;
- the author/authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
- The scientific articles that come to the editorial board undergo initial control of the editorial board regarding the compliance of the journal profile, completeness and conformity of their registration in accordance with the Manuscript Requirements set forth on the website.
- The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
- The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) defines, for the article that has arrived for publication, a reviewer from the membership of the editorial board who supervises the corresponding scientific direction.
- In the absence of a member of the editorial board, the curator of the respective direction, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) defines the external reviewer for the given work.
- Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known specialists in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably during the last 5 years). Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an explicit conflict of interest, which is reflected in the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Anonymous article review (download in PDF).
- After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after its author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
- the article requires additional review by another specialist;
- do not recommend article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.
The editorial board recommends using the standard review form developed by the editorial board to be used in the review, which is available on the journal's website.
- When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should evaluate:
- relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- methodological level of the article;
- scientific, theoretical and applied (if any) value of the performed research;
- correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- correlation of conclusions of the author with available scientific concepts;
- adherence by the authors of the requirements of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author(s) in this paper.
- Scientific articles may be sent for additional review in the following cases:
- insufficient qualification of the expert stated in the questions that are considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of initial expert judgment;
- acute discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
- The reviewed reviewer sends to the editorial by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.
- The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.