The pre-publishing and release of book titles are carried out based on contracts between the “Akademperiodyka” Publishing House of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the scientific institution of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, where this manuscript was created.

The manuscript is accepted for consideration with the recommendation of the academic council of the scientific institution after passing competitions in the departments of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

All manuscripts must receive at least two positive reviews from experts in the relevant field.

All materials submitted to the editorial office of the “Akademperiodyka” Publishing House of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine undergo a mandatory review and editorial process.

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level and to select the most valuable and relevant works.

Peer review is open. The reviewer analyzes the text for signs of plagiarism, pays attention to the presence of scientific apparatus, records errors and comments, and determines the need for revision.

Reviewing takes place in the following sequence:

  1. After receiving the electronic and/or printed versions of the manuscript, its external attributes (design, compliance with standards and requirements) and compliance of the submitted text with the thematic profile are analyzed. In the reply letter, the editorial office informs the author/authors about getting the work text and then puts it for review.
  2. The editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief does the primary expert evaluation of a scientific monograph.
  3. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines reviewers for the received manuscript from among leading scientists on the subject of the submitted manuscript.
  4. Together with the manuscript, a recommended structure of the review is provided, in which the results of the review must be indicated: an assessment of the scientific significance of the submitted material, its relevance and novelty, and general readiness for publication. The time for review is set individually, taking into account the scope and subject matter of the submitted text. The reviewer’s feedback is free from pressure and influence from the editorial office.
  5. After the expert evaluation of the manuscript, the reviewer can:
  • recommend the work for publication;
  • to recommend the work for publication after it has been revised by the author(s), taking into account the comments and recommendations;
  • recommend not to publish the monograph.

If the reviewer recommends the work for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend it for publication, the review should indicate a reasonable excuse for such a decision.

  1. During the processing of scientific manuscripts, reviewers must:
  • pay special attention to the relevance of the researched scientific problem;
  • characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the performed research, the correctness and relevance of the given statements, graphs, drawings, visualization, and data interpretation;
  • evaluate how the author’s conclusions correlate with existing scientific concepts;
  • evaluate the authors’ compliance with the rules of scientific ethics and the correctness of references to literary sources.

A necessary element of the review should be the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s contribution to solving the problem under consideration.

It is appropriate to note in the review the conformity of the style, logic, and accessibility of scientific presentations, as well as to express an opinion regarding the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in the reviewed work.

If the reviewer indicates the need for revision of the work, he must inform whether the work needs to be submitted to him for review after corrections have been made by the author(s).

  1. Scientific works may be sent for additional review due to:
  • insufficient qualification in the issues considered in the scientific work declared by the expert;
  • insufficient level of primary expert opinion;
  • fierce disputability of the theses expressed in the scientific work;
  • completely opposite conclusions of two reviewers.

All stages of pre-publishing, including editing, layout, replication, and publishing in open access with the registration of the DOI index, are performed under the conditions of dedicated comprehensive publishing programs of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and are free of charge for authors and readers.

The authors reserve the copyright and also give the right to the “Akademperiodyka” Publishing House of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine to publish works that contain the results of experimental and theoretical research and are not under consideration for publication in other publishing houses. All materials are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license.

The above procedure is essential for the work with manuscripts of the “Akademperiodyka” Publishing House of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. All force majeure that may arise during the review are discussed in the margins of the consultations and negotiations between the editors, the author(s), and the reviewer(s).