Reviewing

The review is a crucial step in preparing quality production of academic editions. The reviewer decides if the proposed writing corresponds to the scientific standards and demands in contemporary research. They must ascertain the readership, that the article contains no mistakes, is accurate, and that the author’s observations and conclusions are scientifically grounded. The review is a crucial step in preparing quality production of academic editions. The reviewer decides if the proposed writing corresponds to the scientific standards and demands in contemporary research. They must ascertain the readership, that the article contains no mistakes, is accurate, and that the author’s observations and conclusions are scientifically grounded. While reviewing the manuscript the reviewer can point on some limitations of the study, which are necessary to correct, or to elaborate on the studied material. The text of the article must comply with the relevant linguistic and technical norms and standards. The reviewer is authorized to highlight the necessity to correct any flaws of the text to make it readable. The reviewer must assess whether the article includes the following components:

1) Value of the research, the extent to which the article is authentic, and the paper’s prospect for expanding on the studied problem, its worthwhileness for the reader;

2) The reviewer must express their opinions objectively showing their impartiality, ethics and tolerance. The reviewer’s remarks must be beneficial for the author. If the previous rejects the article and does not recommend it for print, they should assist in defining the shortcomings in the strategy, analysis, method or the presentation of material itself. The author can utilize these recommendation in their further work.The reviewer must be qualified so that they can prove scientifically the necessity to elaborate on the article and to avoid the conflict of interests or abuse of authority.A report on the reviewed article should not contain overtly negative and subjective commentaries.

The reviewers must not only point out the flaws in the article, but also highlight its value; they have to propose concrete approaches to elaborate on the drawbacks. The reviewers must restrain from giving overly succinct and straightforward comments since they yield hostile tone to the review. 

A LEAFLET FOR THE REVIEWER OF THE ARTICLES IN THE COLLECTION OF RESEARCH PAPERS “LITERATURE AND CULTURE OF POLISSIA”,

series: "History Research", "Philology Research"

I. The academic articles submitted to the editorial board are peer reviewed. The articles are reviewed in the following modes:

1) Editor-in-chief peer review or their conclusion;

2) Open peer review – by the guest specialist in the respective field of study who has the degree either of Doctor or the Candidate and is not the university official.

3) Single blind peer review by one of the editorial board members;

4) Double-blind peer reviewThe master, postgraduate and doctoral students' articles should be covered by the department's or the supervisor's recommendation to be published.

II. The verdict on the mode of the review is put out by the editor-in-chief.

 III. The reviewers have 3 days to examine the article and give their consent for the review or the motivated refusal to the editor-in-chief (via email).The terms of the reviewing are considered separate for each article with the regard for the expeditious publishing, but cannot exceed two weeks. 

IV. The review must characterize either theoretical or practical value of the article and to compare the author's conclusions with the current scientific concepts. The necessary component of the article is the reviewer’s evaluation of the author’s contribution to the studied subject. The review should also comment on the relevance of the style, logic and consistency of the outline of the article. The reviewer concludes on the credibility and validity of the author’s findings.

The review contains the following components (the review form recommended by the editorial board is given in the Appendix A).

1. The title of the article.

2. The author.

3. The compliance to the journal’s theme.

4. Topicality.

5. Novelty.

6. Compliance to the structure of the academic article.

7. Comprehensiveness of the topic outline in the summary of the article.

8. The quality of the content presentation.

9. The reviewer’s commentary.

10. The reviewer’s conclusion.

11. The reviewer’s credentials, signature, date.

V. When the editorial board receives the reviews the members make the final decision either to publish or reject the article. On the basis of the taken decision the author is sent a letter, via mail or email, on the conclusion about their article publication status. In the case of refusal, the reviewers preserve their anonymity.

VI. The editorial board is authorized to forward the articles for an additional external anonymous peer review. The editor-in-chief requests the review in the letter to the reviewer attaching an article and the recommended review form. 

VII. Positive reviews are not the sufficient ground for the publication. The final decision on whether the article is appropriate to be included in the journal is made by the editorial board.

VIII. The editorial office is authorized to maintain the original reviews.

IX. Provided the review yields a number of critical remarks while the general recommendation is positive the editorial board might classify the materials as polemical and publish the article as the matter for the scientific dispute. 
REVIEW OF THE ACADEMIC ARTICLE SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COLLECTION OF RESEARCH PAPERS “LITERATURE AND CULTURE OF POLISSIA”, series: "History Research", "Philology Research"