Peer-review process
The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal “Biota. Human. Technology”
In order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal “Biota. Human. Technology”, the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific works is reviewed (expert evaluation) of submitted manuscripts of scientific articles.
The journal’s practice is double-blind peer review, an anonymous manuscript evaluation process where the reviewers do not know who is the author of the scientific article, and the author does not know who the reviewers of his/her article are. That is, marking the review form with the last name of the reviewer, providing any information about him/her in it: positions, publications or other, is unacceptable.
All submissions to the journal are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor for completeness and correctness of their design, compliance with the requirements for Instructions for authors out on the website. The Editor-in-Chief (Managing Editor), relying on the additional opinions of the editors of the journal, decides either to send the manuscript for review or to refuse publication. The Editor-in-Chief (Managing Editor) determines two external reviewers for the submitted article. Reviewers must have a scientific degree and carry out research in a specialty corresponding to the topic of the material submitted for publication, and be authors (co-authors) of a total of at least three publications in scientific publications included in category “A” and/or category “B” of the List of Scientific professional editions of Ukraine, and/or in foreign editions indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus databases for the relevant specialty, published during the last five years.
After expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer can:
- recommend an article for publication;
- to recommend the article for publication after the author’s finalization, taking into account the expressed comments and wishes;
- do not recommend an article for placement.
If the reviewer recommends the article for placement after revision taking into account comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the reason for such a decision should be indicated in the review.
The final decision on the publication of a submitted article is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the opinions of at least two independent reviewers and the recommendation of the Deputy Editor (and, if desired, the recommendations of the Managing Editor and the editorial board).
The submitted manuscript is available on the submission review page for review. The review procedure and compliance with editorial ethics is organized in accordance with the principles declared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The editors recommend using the developed standard review form, which is posted on the journal’s website, when reviewing.
When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers must:
- Pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- To characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the performed research;
- Pay special attention to the correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- To assess the extent to which the author’s conclusions correlate with existing scientific concepts;
- Pay special attention to the authors’ compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.
In the reviews, it is advisable to note the appropriateness of the style, logic, and scientificity of the presentation, as well as to draw conclusions about the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration, the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.
Two rounds of review are allowed for each submission. Authors are entitled to one revision of the article after the first round of review; in exceptional cases, a minor revision is acceptable after the second round of review. They should consider the critical comments of reviewers and editors and refer to these comments in a separate letter to the editor submitted with the reviewed files. Materials accepted for publication will be available (as an edited and typed preview of the final article) for proofreading, which should be limited to the correction of typographical errors.
Scientific articles can be sent for revision in case of:
- insufficient expert qualifications specified in the issues considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of initial expert assessment;
- sharp polemics of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
The completed review in the form of a scan copy is attached by the reviewer to the journal’s website or sent to the editorial office by e-mail.
The editors send copies of reviews to the authors (without specifying names, surnames, place of work, so as not to disclose the reviewer’s data) or a reasoned refusal of the editors to publish this particular manuscript.
A revised version of the manuscript must be submitted within one month. If it is submitted after the expiry of one month, the revised version will be considered as a new application submitted.
