Peer Review
All manuscripts submitted to University Scientific Notes undergo mandatory peer review. Peer review is an integral part of the editorial process and is intended to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological soundness, and clarity of presentation.
Standards and guidelines
The journal’s peer review practices are informed by internationally recognized standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and the recommendations of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE).
Peer review model
The journal applies a double anonymized peer review model. This means that authors do not have access to the identities of reviewers, and reviewers are not informed about the identity of the authors. The editorial office takes reasonable steps to remove identifying information from manuscripts prior to review.
Review process
Manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts with relevant expertise in the subject area. As a rule, at least two reviewers are invited to assess each submission. In case of substantially divergent opinions, an additional review may be requested.
Reviewers are selected based on:
- expertise relevant to the manuscript;
- absence of conflicts of interest;
- ability to provide a timely and informed assessment.
Principles of peer review
Peer review in the journal is conducted in accordance with the principles of:
- objectivity;
- impartiality;
- confidentiality;
- academic integrity;
- professional ethics.
The journal considers peer review as a form of critical expert evaluation by specialists in the relevant field, aimed at improving the quality and reliability of scholarly publications.
Reviewer reports
Reviewer reports should provide a reasoned evaluation of the manuscript, including:
- originality and relevance of the research;
- clarity of the research problem;
- engagement with existing literature;
- validity of conclusions;
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- quality of academic writing.
Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Comments should be clear, constructive, and professionally formulated.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share them with third parties, discuss them without permission from the editorial office, or use unpublished materials, data, or ideas for personal advantage.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers are expected to declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may affect their objectivity and to decline the review if such conflicts exist. Reviewers should also decline if they consider themselves insufficiently qualified or unable to complete the review in a reasonable time.
Editorial decisions
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editorial office may decide to:
- accept the manuscript;
- request revisions;
- invite resubmission for further review;
- reject the manuscript.
The final decision rests with the editorial office and takes into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the scientific merit of the manuscript, and its relevance to the journal.
Communication with authors
Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and recommendations. Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised version of the manuscript and, where appropriate, a response addressing the reviewers’ comments.
Transparency of the process
The journal does not publish reviewer reports, reviewer identities, or editorial correspondence. However, authors and reviewers may disclose their participation in the review process at their own discretion, provided that this does not violate principles of publication ethics and that the editorial office is informed.
