Review

PROVISIONS
on reviewing articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Volyn Philological: Text and Context"

General provisions

All the materials (articles, reviews of the published research, information materials, bibliographic reviews, journalistic essays) submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal and correspond to the scientific area of the publication are moderated by the secretary from the point of view of their compliance with the established formal requirements of the journal (control concerns the volume, structure, technical parameters and format, abstracts and keywords, lists of references in Cyrillic and Latin, etc.). Appropriate software (including the licensed Unicheck software) determines the level of uniqueness of the author's text. The Editorial Team may return the paper for editing depending on the moderation results.

Previously reviewed scientific articles are subjects to obligatory peer review. The review procedure is anonymous both for the author of the article and for the reviewers. The scientific review is carried out by highly qualified professionals (primarily external) who are usually Doctors of science, professors from the Ukrainian and foreign institutions. The reviewers may be members of the editorial board of the scientific journal “Volyn Philological: Text and Context” (at least one of the reviewers). The main goal of peer review is to eliminate cases of low-quality research papers. Reviewers estimate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its scientific novelty and practical importance. In addition, the reviewers determine the article's compliance with the ethic principles of the scholarly publications and provide recommendations for eliminating violations.

According to the results of the review, the reviewer fills out a standardized form, where he/she reflects one of these conclusions:

- Recommend an article to print;

- Submit an article for revision to the author;

- Do not recommend the article for printing;

- Recommend the publication of the article, provided that the reviewer’s comments are taken into account by the author;

- Reject the submitted materials with the right of re-submission;

- Reject the submitted materials without the right of re-submission.

Only two revisions of the materials intended for publication are possible. Manuscript corrected by the author and submitted within four months from the date of receipt of the review is considered as such filed again. Certain works of eminent scholars, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard procedure of reviewing.

 

 

Journal Publication Ethics

 

The review of the materials submitted to the "Volyn Philological: Text and Context" journal is carried out to ensure the proper ethical standards of scientific research. In peer review, the professional edition is guided by the requirements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the experience of the leading scientific communities to improve the quality of the published articles and overcome bias in the case of rejection. The editorial board of "Volyn Philological: Text and Context" preserves the confidentiality of any information about the manuscript submitted for scientific review. To this end, the reviewer must confirm in writing the commitment to keep the fact of the content of the submitted materials confidential. The basic ethical principles to which the review subjects should adhere are:

author and reviewer are equally responsible for the originality and authenticity of the material submitted for publication;

the reviewer evaluates objectively the article submitted and determines its compliance with scientific standards;

the reviewer ought to be confident in his/her own qualifications to review the proposed research and there is no conflict of interest (if there is any, he ought to report about it to the editorial staff);

absence of professional and personal relationships between the author and the reviewer (official subordination, scientific supervision or co-authorship) that may influence the reviewer's judgments (in this case the reviewer is obliged to refuse reviewing; the author of the submitted material may point to an unwanted reviewer);

preserving confidentiality of the content of the peer-reviewed article (exception: the need for a special consultation, which implies the permission of the editorial board);

reasonableness and substantiation adequacy of the reviewer's remarks in case of plagiarism or incorrect citation;

high self-discipline of authors and reviewers, which implies timely submission of the materials;

mutual respect of reviewing and publication entities.

Responsibility for copyright infringement lies with the author of the article. The author of the article is responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions made and the scientific and theoretical level of the article.

 

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts

1. Submitted materials are examined for their compliance with formal and technical requirements. Manuscripts drafted with violation of the established standards are not registered and are not allowed for further review, which is reported to the authors.

2. All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board are directed according to the profile of research to one or in some cases two reviewers. The chief editor of "Volyn Philological: text and context" assigns reviewers. Under certain circumstances reviewers can be assigned at the meeting of the Editorial Board by its members.

3. Within 7 calendar days from the date of receving the article, the reviewer should evaluate the possibility of reviewing the article, taking into account his own qualifications, the stated problems of the article and the absence of a conflict of interest, as reported by the editor-in-chief of the journal. In the event of a conflict of interest or inability to conduct a review, the chief editor decides on the appointment of another reviewer. The expert's refusal to review the article should be motivated.

4. Within 20 calendar days from the day of receiving the article, the reviewer gives an opinion on the possibility of printing the article in the journal. If necessary, the reviewing period of the article can be in certain cases modified or extended to create the conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the material submitted.

5. The review procedure is anonymous both for the author of the article and for the reviewer and is carried out by two reviewers (double “blind” review). The interaction between the author of the article and the reviewers is held by correspondence via e-mail through the executive secretary or using the Open Journal Systems (an open software package that supports management and publishing processes. The package is developed, maintained and freely distributed by the GNU General Public License. Website: https: // volyntext. eenu.edu.ua/index.php/volyntext). At the request of the reviewer and by agreement with the working group, the interaction between the Editorial Board and a reviewer can be an open (but only in the case when the interaction of openness can improve the style and presentation consistency of the research material). In this case, the name of the reviewer is be provided at the end of the printed article.

6. After the in-depth analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in a standardized form (Appendix 1) that contains summarizing recommendations. In the process of designing the form, the recommendations on the consistency and procedure of the reviewing process were used and generalized. The editorial staff informs the author about the review results by e-mail without disclosing confidential information about the editor.

7. If the reviewer provided an opinion on the finalization of the article, the executive secretary of the journal, in agreement with the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief), sends the article to the author for revision with the suggestion to take into account the reviewer's comments while preparing the updated version or argue their repudiation. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which answers all the comments and explains all the corrections he has made. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and to prepare a reasoned opinion about the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of an editorial reviewer's positive opinion (or the decision of the Editorial Board) about the possibility of publishing the article.

8. If the author of the article does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, he has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal. Under such circumstances, the article is reviewed at a meeting of the editorial board working group, which studies in detail the opinions of the reviewer and the author of the article. The editorial board of the journal can send an article for additional review by another reviewer. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article in case of impossibility or the author’s unwillingness to take into account the comments of the reviewer. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer, with mandatory adherence to the principles of anonymous peer review.

9. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is taken by the Editor-in-Chief (or on his behalf - a member of the Editorial Board) or if it is necessary - at the meeting of the Editorial Board as a whole. After the decision is made to allow the article to be published, the executive secretary informs the author and specifies the expected term of publication.

10. The approved for publication article is provided to a technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections which do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscripts in the layout version of the article are returned to the author for approval.

11. The final decision on the articles to be printed in the next issue of the journal is recorded in the protocol of the Academic Council meeting of Lesia Ukrainka Eastern European National University, which is noted on the second page of the journal.

Appendix 1

STANDARDIZED APPRAISAL FORM OF THE ARTICLE

QUESTIONS TO THE REVIEWER	ANSWER «YES» or «NO»	REMARKS
Does the topic of the article correspond to the scientific profile of the journal?
Is the problem raised in the article relevant and of practical importance?
Does the title of the article reflect its content?
Do the abstract and summary of the article correspond to its content?
Is the purpose and the objectives of the study clearly articulated?
Are the main research issues formulated logically and convincingly?
Are they sufficiently illustrated?
Are there any signs of misappropriation or other breaches of scientific ethics?
Are there any recommendations to improve the style of materials presentation?
Special Reviewer's Opinion
Confidential recommendations for the editor
General Conclusions (underline the necessary) Publish unchanged Publish after making changes Reject with the right of re-submission; Reject without the right of re-submission;

The reviewer's signature

 

_______________

 

Appendix 2

Reviewer’s Profile

Reviewer’s surname, name, patronymic
Scientific degree, academic title
Institution
Date of the article received by the reviewer
Date of filing the review to the editor