Procedure for reviewing manuscripts

Procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles

Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Animal Husbandry of the Steppe of Ukraine" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.

  1. Two-way blind (anonymous) peer review is applied in the magazine "Animal Husbandry of the Steppe of Ukraine":
  • personal data of the author/authors are not disclosed to the reviewer;
  • the personal data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author/authors.
  1. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their design and compliance with the requirements for manuscripts presented on the website.
  2. The primary expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
  3. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines for the article submitted for publication a reviewer from among the members of the editorial board who oversees the relevant scientific direction.
  • In the absence of a member of the editorial board - the curator of the relevant direction, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines the external reviewer for this work.
  • Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably in the last 5 years).
  1. After expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
  • recommend an article for publication;
  • to recommend the article for publication after it has been revised by the author, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
  • do not recommend an article for publication.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its 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 editors recommend using the standard review form developed by the editors, which is posted on the journal's website, when reviewing.

  1. 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,
  • correctness of the given mathematical statements, graphs, drawings;
  • evaluate how the author's conclusions are correlated with existing scientific concepts;
  • evaluate the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.

A 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 appropriate to note in the peer review the conformity of the style, logic and accessibility of scientific presentations, as well as to make a conclusion regarding the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in this work.

  1. Scientific articles may be sent for additional review. Reasons for re-review can be:
  • insufficient qualification declared by the expert in the issues considered in the scientific article;
  • insufficiently high level of primary expert opinion;
  • sharp debatability of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  1. The reviewer sends the completed review to the editors by e-mail in the form of a scanned copy.
  2. The editors send to the authors copies of reviews (anonymous so as not to reveal data about the reviewer) or a reasoned refusal of the editors to publish this particular manuscript.