Reviewer Guidelines

Double anonymous review

We use double anonymized peer-review process (in accordance with this taxonomy ):

reviewers identity is not made visible to author(s), author(s) identity is not made visible to reviewers, reviewers, and author(s) identity is only visible to (decision-making) editor;
reviewers interact with Editor;
no information about the review process or editorial decision process is published.

Such a procedure allows ensuring the objectivity of the review process, subject to proper confidentiality and the absence of a conflict of interest.

Two reviewers are assigned to each submission (please note that neither reviewer may recommend co-reviewer). Assigned reviewers will conduct their own reviews (regarding the article and existing supplementary materials) independent of one another, following steps established in the review template.

How to become a Reviewer

Researchers/Scientists with significant experience and expertise in the subject area covered by the щг, who are interested in completing such reviews, may become Reviewers for this Publication. For that, they need to register on Publication website under “Reviewer” role and provide detailed description of their experience.

Selection for review process is done by editor based on following considerations:

Necessary experience in evaluating research quality;
Independence from Author(s) of an article;
Free of conflict of interest (do not work for the same organization, do not have publications with the author(s) in the last 5 years, do not have any financial or professional interests or gains as result of this work, and are not a family member)

In addition, priority is given to those reviewers who meet the following criteria:

Quality of prior reviews;
Being active in the research community;
Number of publications in a subject area.

If you are selected to become a reviewer, the editorial office will send you an offer letter. Please respond within 3 working days with your acceptance, otherwise your candidacy will be rejected.

Before you accept a request to review, please ensure you meet all requirements listed above and have considered the time commitment necessary to complete a quality review.

By accepting the offer to review, you will agree to write and submit a quality review within the editorial deadline (up to 14 days).

We appreciate prompt communication or advance notice in case the reviewer is having difficulties meeting the 14-day deadline.

Useful materials for reviewers

All reviewers should familiarize themselves with the following resources:

What to consider when offered to review a scholarly manuscript – COPE guidelines will help to make the decision whether to accept a review offer;
▪ Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers – COPE guidelines that provide basic principles and standards that all peer reviewers must follow during the peer review process;
▪ Web of Science Academy – offers free tools and resources on how to maintain research quality and how to write a quality reviews;
Learning OJS 3.3: A Visual Guide to Open Journal Systems (Reviewing).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Provide objective and constructive feedback in allotted time (up to 14 days);
Provide feedback free of any personal biases;
Have relevant experience to assess quality of the research;
Avoid any conflict of interest from Author or Editor or otherwise notify editorial office;
Comply with ethical norms and guidelines of the Publication and notify editorial office of any issues;
Maintain information confidentiality and not disclose any information without permission from Chief Editor;
Do not use any of the reviewed materials that has not yet been published for any personal gain;
Make themselves available in case of questions on completed reviews and need for clarification;
Be professional and communicate well.

Writing Review

After accepting an offer to review, you will receive a questionnaire, which you need to answer and/or provide comments to.

Here, we highlighted some aspects that you should pay attention to before filling out the questionnaire:

General Overview	Is this paper in scope of the Publication? Is this research original and new? Is this research scientifically significant? Does it have any future practical application? Does this paper describe all goals? Does the title match the content?
Keywords	Do the keywords reflect research substance? Are they complete to reach key readership audience?
Abstract	Does the abstract reflect the content of the article according to the IMRaD structure? Is it possible to clearly understand the goals/objectives, the most significant results and conclusions obtained from the abstract?
Introduction	Is an introduction concise and clear? Does introduction create context for the subject and topic, formulate the problem in its general form and its relevance?
Literature review	Is the literature used to support this research the latest and the most relevant? Did the author submit a short description of current research materials to support research context? Are the materials used in this research geographically diverse and represent the best and most relevant research in the given area? Are there any additional resources that would have to be considered for this research?
Methods	Take note! Depending on the type of research, such a section can be presented in a concise or extended statement, so the reviewer must give an assessment of the completeness and sufficiency of the given information. Does the Author disclose resources of used data? Are the methods described clearly? Did the authors justify the choice of methods among the available alternatives? Are the new methods well documented? Is this information sufficient for independent research support?
Results	Are the results presented clearly and are they in agreement with documented methodology? Are the results presented correctly? Are they well-supported and readable? Are the graphs/tables significant to be used in the research?
Discussion	Take note! This section should not duplicate the results, but explain and justify them. How those results correspond with already known outcomes. Any inconsistencies with prior work are properly noted? Should any limitations be noted?
Conclusion	Whether author reached his goals? Is there a connection with other sections of the research? Does the author offer any direction for future research? Are the results consistent with the explanations listed in “Discussion” section?

If you have any questions about the review procedure, contact the editor through the internal message system on the SED's website or write to us for clarification at: sed@ieu.edu.ua

Additional Information

Please note, that it is not reviewer’s responsibility to check the article for grammatical correctness. However, if grammatical or spelling errors significantly impact the content of the research, please notify the editor.

If research lacks logical connection because of insufficient analysis, then the reviewer must explain what additional information or analyses may be expected to be added to mitigate.

The OJS form for reviewers does not allow for numbered list entries. Accordingly, we recommend numbering existing comments for more convenient communication.

General Assessment

After completing the survey, it is necessary to provide a general recommendation for the editor on the further decision by choosing one of the proposed options:

Accept without change;
Minor revisions – paper could be accepted for publishing after small changes/updates that do not require a lot of time (not more than a few working days), and typically do not require additional review;
Major revisions. — submitted research contains major deficiencies, inconsistencies and could only be submitted after correction. Typically, such revisions take a long time and must be re-reviewed. In this case, author(s) must respond to all comments and recommendations;
Reject research paper.

If you have any suggestions for improving the review process, we would be happy to consider them.