The application submitted for Actual Problems of Mind ("Освітній вимір") on September 2022 has been accepted for inclusion in ERIH PLUS.
Guidelines for reviewers
Peer review of a scientific manuscript involves scientific, rational and well-founded criticism, the purpose of which is to provide an objective assessment and a balanced decision regarding the publication of this manuscript. The reviewer must be demanding of the material submitted for consideration, as well as of himself. If, during the review of the manuscript, the reviewer realizes that his/her qualifications are not sufficient for a full-fledged review, because the manuscript is highly specialized, goes beyond the competence of the reviewer, contains data to which the reviewer does not have access, etc., the reviewer must inform the editor about this and, if possible, recommend another specialist in this area.
If the reviewer discovers plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct in the submitted manuscript, he/she must notify the editor with the presentation of materials that confirm the plagiarism or other forms of academic misconduct found.
When reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer should pay attention to its following characteristics:
- is the manuscript unique and interesting enough for publication?
- does the manuscript correspond to the general theme of the collection?
- does the manuscript fall under the general standards that the collection adheres to?
- does the declared title correspond to the text of the manuscript?
- does the research described in the manuscript rely on the scientific method?
- does the manuscript contain scientific results?
- is the manuscript logically structured?
- are the conclusions of the study consistent with the stated purpose and are they not already obtained in other scientific studies?
The reviewer's final recommendation must be qualified according to one of three points:
(1) accept as it is;
(2) accept with changes (specify in the comments);
(3) reject (justify in the comments)
The reviewer's comments should be formulated clearly and comprehensibly. It is important to indicate whether this comment is the reviewer's own point of view or is supported by scientific research, facts or other data.
The reviewer must substantiate his criticism, relying on specific places of the manuscript, confirm his remarks with published materials or other scientific data. Criticism is not considered justified if it is based on national, political, social, religious, etc. preferences and does not contain a rational basis. The presence of stylistic and grammatical errors in a moderate amount, which does not reduce the scientific value of the manuscript, is not a reason for rejection, but the reviewer should draw the editor's attention to it.
The final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is made by the editor based on reviewing and/or editing the manuscript. The editor has the right to invite several reviewers to review, to propose their own edits, and to determine whether the edits proposed by the reviewer are substantial, as well as whether the edits made by the author are satisfactory.