Peer-review process

1. The process of the scientific articles’ manuscripts reviewing is carried out in order to adhere to the high scientific-theoretical and practical level of Ukrainian Journal of Educational Studies and Information Technology.

2. Scientific articles, which are submitted through the Open Journal System platform, are previewed by the executive editor on the compliance of their design with the requirements for writing and drawing articles that posted on page Author Guidelines. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review.

3. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique).

4. In the journal for the review of scientific articles the double (blind) review is used:

  • The reviewer does not know who is the Author / Authors of the article.
  • The Author / Authors of the article do not know who is the Reviewer.

5. When reviewing scientific articles the Reviewers must:

  • to pay attention to the relevance of the submitted manuscript of the article, its theoretical and (or) practical significance;
  • to pay attention to any significant similarity between the submitted manuscript and any other published article or manuscript, as well as to evaluate the compliance by the author / authors of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to the using source;
  • to evaluate the degree of using the latest achievements in the industry from which the manuscript of the article was prepared;
  • to evaluate  the correctness of the used research methods and calculations performed (in the case of an experimental article);
  • to evaluate  the degree of correctness of conclusions in the article’s manuscript with available scientific concepts, provisions, results of research by other authors;
  • to substantiate the conclusions rather convincingly;
  • to evaluate  the contribution of each Author/Authors of the article's manuscript into solving the problem;
  • to evaluate the logic of the laying out the material in the manuscript of the article, its conformity with the scientific style, indicate the authenticity and validity of the conclusions;
  • to provide the review of the article’s manuscript in time;
  • should not use or disclose unpublished information contained in the submitted manuscript of the article, unless otherwise agreed by the author / authors.

6. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept. The manuscript may be published without content revision. Only minor edits are needed. No further reviews are requested.
  • Minor revisions required. The authors are required to make moderate changes to their manuscript which are recommended in the reviews. The manuscript becomes acceptable for publication if these change recommendations are successfully addressed and implemented. The revised manuscript will be send back to all (or a selection of) reviewers for the second round of reviews. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers detailing the improvements made for the resubmission.
  • Major revisions required. The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. However, a major revision which addresses all issues raised by the reviewers may be acceptable for publication. The revised manuscript will undergo a full second round of review. Authors are requested to provide a letter to the reviewers clearly describing the improvements made for the resubmission.
  • Reject. In its current shape the manuscript is not suitable for publication and has no potential for improvement. A resubmission of such a manuscript is only possible after contacting either the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Associate Editors with a clear message stating that the manuscript has been fully re-worked.
  • Send to another journal - the subject of the manuscript is suitable to another edition.

7. We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

8. We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard.

9. After the process of reviewing finished all the relevant information is sent to the author. Within 2-5 weeks the author fixes the article and loads the new version to the journal’s system. If after the indicated date the article was not returned (or not informed about the delay to the editor) – the article is dequeued and deleted.

Selecting peer-reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using people who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient.
We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Writing the review

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere.

Reports should document the referees’ thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the referees feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific refereeing standards, reviewer can contact the editor for guidance.


The journal staff follows the worldwide standards of transparency of the review process and in this connection the given edition is practicing double "blind" peer reviewing of manuscripts.
Authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly.

Appeal Process

  • If the author does not agree with the certain comments of the reviewer, he has the right to appeal to the editor in the format "notes of reviewer - comment of author." This document is sent to the reviewer and together with the editor appropriate decision regarding the manuscript is accepted.
  • If the reviewers select mutually antithetical resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept / reject), the editor appoints an independent expert.