Peer Review Process

The peer review (expert evaluation) is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal “Medical Education”. The purpose of the peer review is to contribute to the careful selection of author’s manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

  1. The journal “Medical Education” adheres to double-blind (anonymous) review: the reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors; the authors do not know the reviewer’s personal data.
  2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements placed in the section Terms of Publication. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the section Formatting Guidelines, which have passed initial control in the editorial office and copyright check, are admitted to the review stage.
  3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. In cases, where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in the publication (is an author, co-author of an article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the review is carried out by his deputy or another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest. Submissions must match the topic of the journal. If the requirements for publication of the journal are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the authors from it.
  4. Anonymous article is sent by e-mail:
  • to a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
  • to two external experts (reviewers).

Ukrainian and foreign doctors of science specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in the external review. On behalf of the editors, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. An anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the same institution as the author and cannot be in a conflict of interest.

  1. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues:
  • compliance of the content of the article with the topic stated in the title;
  • relevance and novelty of the scientific problem discussed in the article;
  • justification of the practical significance of the conducted research;
  • value for a wide range of readers.
  1. The reviewers fill out standard review forms and choose one of the following options:
  • to recommend an article for publication;
  • to recommend the article for publication after minor revision;
  • to recommend the article for publication after major revision;
  • do not recommend an article for publication.

If the reviewers’ recommendation for the article is a rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviews signed by the reviewers with a conventional or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.

  1. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles to be revised are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, in the process of which the reviewers can ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief analyses the reviews of the reviewers and makes the final decision on publication based on them, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the requirements of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making on articles authored by himself, his family members or colleagues, as well as on materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. All such articles are independently peer-reviewed without the participation of the editor or his research team. The final decision on these articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. REVIEW FORM

 

A typical peer review deadline: 2-4 weeks

Median time to first decision: 4-8 weeks