Peer-review process

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal "Statistics of Ukraine"

  1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Statistics of Ukraine" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

  2. The journal "Statistics of Ukraine" uses Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author / authors;
  • the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
  1. The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Author Guidelines set out on the site.
  2. The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
  • In the absence of a member of the editorial board – the curator of the respective direction, the Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines the external reviewer for the provided article.
  • Reviewers should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).
  1. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
  • recommend article for posting;
  • recommend the article for its publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
  • do not recommend article for posting.
    If the reviewer recommends the article for posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision
    The editor recommends using the developed standard review form, which is available on the site's website, when reviewing.
  1. When reviewing scientific articles reviewers must:
  • pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
  • correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
  • assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
  • adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
    The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
    It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.
  1. Reviewers submit their reviews to the journal’s email address or via the online portal on the website by the specified deadline in two versions: one signed by the reviewer (in PDF format) and one without the reviewer’s name (in Word format), which is sent to the author of the article. All signed reviews are retained for three years from the date of receipt. The deputy editor-in-chief or executive secretary is responsible for their storage. Upon expiration of this period, they are destroyed in accordance with the Procedure for Handling Documents Subject to Disposal.
  2. Full texts of articles submitted for consideration at the Editorial Board meeting are distributed to Editorial Board members for review.
  3. For each article submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board, one of the following decisions may be made by consensus: “Publish”; “Publish with revisions”; “For revision and review (by a specific editorial board member/reviewer)”; “For revision with resubmission to the editorial board”; “Reject.” An article may be rejected in cases of non-compliance with the journal’s scope, low scientific quality, or detection of plagiarism. In the event of an article’s rejection, the Editorial Board does not engage in negotiations or discussions with the author.
  4. The review period is up to 30 days.
  5. The author is notified of the Editorial Board’s decision regarding the article by email, signed by the deputy editor-in-chief (executive secretary). The author is required to take the suggestions and comments provided in the reviews into account to the greatest extent possible, unless the decision regarding the article is “Reject.”
  6. The author shall submit the revised article to the official email address or upload it via the online author portal on the website. The article is reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief (or the Deputy Editors-in-Chief) to ensure that the reviewers’ comments have been fully and appropriately addressed and that the article’s formatting complies with the journal’s requirements.
  7. If the manuscript has been properly revised and formatted in accordance with the Editorial Board’s previous decision, it may be approved for publication by the relevant member of the Editorial Board, a reviewer, or the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief), or it may be submitted for reconsideration by the Editorial Board.
  8. In the event of reconsideration by the Editorial Board, the article is either recommended for publication or rejected without the possibility of further revision.
  9. If plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism is detected in an excessive amount (over 15%) in an already published article, the Editor-in-Chief, a reviewer, or a member of the Editorial Board shall notify all other members of the Editorial Board, which shall then decide to retract the article. A notice of retraction is posted in the online version on the page of the relevant article and in the next issue following the discovery of the violation.