The review procedure at the Ukrainian Black Sea Region Agrarian Science journal is aimed at ensuring high scientific quality of publications, the reliability of the results presented, and adherence to ethical publishing standards. The journal follows the principles of double-blind peer review, guaranteeing the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the process. In accordance with COPE guidelines, the editorial board is required to ensure a proper, thorough, and independent expert evaluation, with editorial decisions based on the content of the reviewers' conclusions.
1. Preliminary Review
Before a manuscript is sent for review, it undergoes an initial check to determine whether it meets the journal's requirements and does not infringe upon copyright. This step is carried out by the editor-in-chief or their deputy.
If a conflict of interest is identified during the preliminary review, the article is forwarded to another editorial board member who has no connection to the author for an objective assessment.
2. Review Process
Anonymisation of the Manuscript: Once the manuscript passes the preliminary review, it is sent for peer review. The manuscript is sent to a member of the editorial board in the relevant field and two external experts who are specialists in the subject matter. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research experience and specialisation in the subject area of the manuscript. Ukrainian and international experts holding a PhD or an equivalent academic qualification are invited to review the manuscripts. It is a mandatory requirement that there be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the authors.
Reviewers receive an anonymised manuscript, helping to avoid bias during the evaluation process.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the following aspects:
3. Reviewers' Decision
After reviewing the article, reviewers can suggest one of three decisions:
All reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years, ensuring continued access to reviewers’ conclusions and enabling tracking of changes during the publication process.
4. Editorial Decision
Once the reviewers have submitted their feedback, the author receives their comments, but the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed. This ensures anonymity and maintains the integrity of the discussion. The author has the opportunity to make the necessary changes to the article based on the reviewers' recommendations.
After revisions, the article undergoes a recheck.
If necessary, the changes may be re-evaluated by the reviewers or the editorial board member responsible for the field. The final editorial decision is made by the editor-in-chief. In the event of a conflict of interest or the need for further assessment, the decision may be made by the deputy editor-in-chief.
The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the editorial board’s internal guidelines, which provide for a structured assessment of the manuscript against specified criteria. The results of the peer review are provided in writing and are retained by the journal’s editorial office.
5. Timeframe
The review process typically takes between 2 to 4 weeks, depending on the complexity of the article and the availability of reviewers. The first editorial decision (based on the reviews received) is made within 4 to 8 weeks from the submission date. After receiving the reviewers' recommendations, authors have time to make revisions, and the article is rechecked by the editorial board.