Peer Review Process

Article Review Procedure

  1. The Editorial Board registers the article provided it meets the requirements published in the journal and posted on the website.

  2. A registered article is subject to mandatory peer review. The decision regarding publication is made by the Editorial Board based on the results of the article review within 14 to 60 days. The Editorial Board does not undertake the obligation to explain the reasons for the refusal to publish an article. Materials sent to the Editorial Board are not returned to the authors. Manuscripts must present materials that have not been previously published and have not been submitted to other publications.

  3. The Editor-in-Chief determines the scientific value of the work and appoints two reviewers – independent specialists whose scientific specialization is closest to the topic of the work. Reviewers are, as a rule, leading scientists in the fields of pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, medicine, etc.

  4. The review period is two weeks. Depending on the situation and at the reviewer's request, the review period may be extended.

  5. To ensure the most complete and objective response to the article, the Editorial Board has developed guidelines for the reviewer.

  6. The reviewer makes one of the following conclusions:

    • recommend the article for publication in the author's version;

    • recommend the article for publication after revision and consideration of the indicated deficiencies;

    • recommend transferring the article for additional review to another specialist;

    • reject the publication of the work, indicating the reason.

  7. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the reviewers' proposals and makes the appropriate decision: to send the article for printing or to return it to the author with a proposal to take into account the reviewer's recommendations and revise it. The revised work received from the author is re-reviewed.

  8. Since 2015, the Editorial Board has switched to the practice of double-blind peer review: the author does not know who is evaluating their work, and the reviewer does not know whom they are reviewing. Correspondence between the reviewer and the author is conducted through the Editorial Board. When evaluating an article, the reviewer may, on their own initiative, involve certain specialists to provide a substantiated response regarding publication.

  9. For the Editor-in-Chief, the reviewer's conclusion is not final. If the reviewers' opinions do not coincide, the Editor-in-Chief sends the work for additional review to a third reviewer.

  10. If the author disagrees with the review, they may send a reasoned response to the Editorial Board, and then the Editorial Board decides on the advisability of sending it for re-review to a different panel of reviewers. In conflict or non-standard situations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the appropriate decision independently.

  11. In the case of a positive review, the Editor-in-Chief submits the article to the editorial office with the note "For Print" (or "Accepted"), and the article goes through the following stages: stylistic and spelling editing, technical editing, and layout formatting for submission to the publisher.

  12. The Academic Council of the I. Horbachevsky Ternopil State Medical University finally approves the issue at its regular meetings.

  13. Originals of articles and reviews are kept in the journal's editorial office for three years.