Peer review of manuscripts submitted to Medical Science of Ukraine is intended to ensure the scientific validity, reliability and quality of published materials. Expert assessment helps the Editorial Office determine whether a manuscript falls within the journal’s scope and evaluate its scientific novelty, methodological soundness and the significance of its findings. It also helps authors improve the submitted material.

All participants in the peer-review process must act objectively, impartially and confidentially and comply with the journal’s requirements concerning publication ethics and conflict of interest.

1. Peer-review model

The journal applies double-anonymised peer review:

• reviewers are not provided with the authors’ names, affiliations or other personal information;
• authors are not provided with the reviewers’ names or personal information.

Anonymity applies to interactions between authors and reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief, the handling editor and members of the Editorial Office may have access to information about the authors to the extent necessary to organise the editorial process, identify potential conflict of interest and make editorial decisions.

All research articles, including original research and review articles, undergo independent external peer review. Materials that do not constitute research articles, including editorial notices, corrections and informational materials, may undergo editorial assessment without external peer review. The status of such materials must be clearly indicated upon publication.

2. Initial editorial assessment

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Office assesses:

• its conformity with the journal’s scope, aims and objectives;
• compliance with the journal’s requirements concerning manuscript structure and formatting;
• the completeness of the submitted materials and accompanying documents;
• the basic scientific and methodological validity of the study;
• the presence of the required ethical declarations;
• compliance with other editorial requirements established in the journal’s relevant policies.

The initial assessment is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor appointed by them who has appropriate expertise in the relevant field and no conflict of interest.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, contains obvious and substantial scientific or methodological deficiencies, fails to comply with the established requirements or shows indications of a breach of publication ethics. The author is informed of the decision and its principal grounds.

A manuscript that successfully passes the initial assessment is assigned a registration code. The Editorial Office removes from the text, electronic file properties and accompanying materials any information that could directly identify the authors, after which the manuscript is sent for external peer review.

3. Selection of reviewers

For each manuscript submitted for external peer review, the handling editor selects at least two independent external experts.

A member of the Editorial Board who acts as the handling editor and coordinates the assessment of the manuscript is not counted as one of the two external reviewers.

When selecting reviewers, the following factors are taken into account:

• the relevance of the reviewer’s academic expertise to the subject matter and methodology of the study;
• the reviewer’s recent scientific publications in the relevant field;
• research, clinical or other professional experience required for a competent assessment of the manuscript;
• independence from the authors and the absence of conflict of interest;
• the ability to submit a review within the specified period.

The Editorial Office verifies the identity, qualifications, affiliation and contact details of a potential reviewer through their institutional webpage, ORCID record, scientific publications, profiles in bibliographic databases or other reliable sources. The use of a personal email address without the possibility of independently verifying the reviewer’s identity is insufficient.

Where authors suggest potential reviewers, the Editorial Office is not obliged to invite them. Suggested reviewers are subject to the same checks concerning independence, competence and the authenticity of their details as reviewers selected by the Editorial Office. Authors may also submit a reasoned request that particular individuals not be involved in the assessment of their manuscript. The final decision regarding the appointment of reviewers is made by the handling editor.

Where necessary, the manuscript may also be referred to a statistical, methodological, clinical or other relevant specialist.

4. Reviewers’ conflict of interest

Before accepting an invitation, each reviewer must confirm that they have the appropriate expertise and inform the Editorial Office of the presence or absence of any circumstances that could affect, or appear to affect, the objectivity of their assessment.

A reviewer must not assess a manuscript if they:

• are employed by the same institution as any of the authors;
• have, within the preceding three years, been a close co-author, academic supervisor, consultant, student, participant in a joint project or recipient of a joint grant with any of the authors;
• have personal, family, financial, professional, academic or other relationships that may prevent an impartial assessment;
• have a direct interest in a positive or negative editorial decision;
• are working on a manuscript or study so similar to the submitted work that a competing interest may arise.

If, during double-anonymised peer review, a reviewer believes that they have identified the author of the manuscript and this creates a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editorial Office and suspend the assessment until further instructions are received.

The final decision as to whether a conflict of interest exists is made by the handling editor. Where a conflict exists, the reviewer is replaced by another independent expert.

5. Confidentiality and professional conduct of reviewers

The manuscript, supplementary materials, correspondence and peer-review reports are confidential documents. A reviewer must not:

• disclose the manuscript to third parties or involve another person in its assessment without the prior permission of the Editorial Office;
• contact the authors directly concerning the manuscript;
• use unpublished data, ideas, methods or findings for their own benefit or for the benefit of another person;
• publicly discuss the content of the manuscript or the progress of its assessment;
• upload the manuscript or any part of it to external artificial intelligence systems where the confidentiality of the material cannot be guaranteed or where the Editorial Office has not granted prior permission in accordance with the journal’s separate policy.

A peer-review report must be objective, reasoned, constructive and professional. Personal remarks, discriminatory statements, unsubstantiated allegations or demands unrelated to improving the scientific quality of the manuscript are unacceptable.

Recommendations to add references must be scientifically justified. Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewers’ own publications, articles published in the journal or works by other authors solely for the purpose of increasing citation metrics.

6. Manuscript assessment criteria

During peer review, experts assess:

• the manuscript’s conformity with the journal’s scope and subject areas;
• the consistency of its content with the title, aim and objectives of the study;
• the relevance, originality and scientific novelty of the work;
• the validity of the research design and methods applied;
• the correctness of the statistical analysis, where applicable;
• the reliability, completeness and logical presentation of the findings;
• the consistency of the conclusions with the findings obtained;
• the appropriate consideration of the study’s limitations;
• the relevance and currency of the sources used;
• compliance with ethical requirements concerning the conduct and reporting of the study;
• the theoretical, clinical or practical significance of the work;
• the clarity, coherence and comprehensibility of the presentation.

Where a reviewer identifies indications of duplicate publication, unreliable data, image manipulation, plagiarism, inappropriate citation or another potential breach, they must confidentially notify the handling editor and must not conduct an independent investigation.

7. Reviewers’ recommendations

The reviewer completes the journal’s prescribed review form and provides one of the following recommendations:

• accept the manuscript for publication;
• accept after minor revision;
• reconsider after major revision;
• reject the manuscript.

A recommendation for revision or rejection must include a specific and reasoned explanation. The reviewer may provide separate comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor; however, these sections must not contradict one another.

Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory and do not constitute an automatic publication decision.

8. Revision and further peer review

Where a manuscript requires revision, the author is provided with anonymised reviewers’ comments and editorial remarks. The author must submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript;
• a separate response to each comment;
• a clear indication of the changes made or a reasoned explanation for not following a particular recommendation.

A substantially revised manuscript is normally returned to the same reviewers. Where this is not possible, or at the discretion of the handling editor, another independent expert may be appointed.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance. The manuscript may be rejected if the revisions do not address substantial concerns or if further assessment reveals new and significant problems.

9. Divergent peer-review reports

Where reviewers’ conclusions differ substantially, the handling editor evaluates the reasoning provided in each report and may:

• request an assessment from a third independent reviewer;
• involve an additional statistical or methodological expert;
• refer the manuscript to another member of the Editorial Board who has the relevant expertise and no conflict of interest.

An editorial decision is not determined by simply counting positive and negative recommendations. The decision takes into account the soundness of the reviewers’ arguments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its conformity with the journal’s scope, compliance with ethical requirements and the authors’ adequate response to the comments received.

10. Final editorial decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another authorised editor who has no conflict of interest.

The following factors are taken into account when making the decision:

• the reviewers’ conclusions and supporting arguments;
• the results of the initial and subsequent editorial assessments;
• the scientific reliability and originality of the material;
• the manuscript’s conformity with the journal’s scope and editorial requirements;
• compliance with research and publication ethics requirements.

An editor may disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation, but such a decision must be based on scientific, methodological or editorial grounds and must be appropriately documented.

11. Conflict of interest involving the Editor-in-Chief and other editors

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, a member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor must withdraw from the assessment of a manuscript if they:

• are an author or co-author of the manuscript;
• have close family or personal relationships with any of the authors;
• work in the same organisational unit as any of the authors;
• have recently collaborated with any of the authors or have joint projects, grants or other professional relationships with them;
• have a financial, commercial, academic or other interest in the outcome of the manuscript’s assessment;
• are unable, for any other reason, to ensure an independent and impartial decision.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, they must not participate in the initial assessment of the manuscript, the selection of reviewers, correspondence with reviewers, the evaluation of peer-review reports, editorial discussions or the final decision.

The manuscript is assigned to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another experienced member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest. Where the Deputy Editor-in-Chief also has a conflict of interest, the editorial process is assigned to an independent member of the Editorial Board or a guest editor with the appropriate expertise.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board or employees of the publishing institution are assessed under the standard procedure and receive no preferential treatment. Individuals associated with such a manuscript do not have access to reviewers’ personal information and may not influence the course or outcome of the assessment.

The editor’s withdrawal and the transfer of responsibility to another independent person are documented in the journal’s internal editorial system.

12. Retention of materials and peer-review timeframes

The Editorial Office retains peer-review materials, including reviewer invitations, conflict-of-interest declarations, peer-review reports, editorial decisions, manuscript versions and correspondence, in a secure editorial system.

Materials relating to a published article are retained for at least three years after publication. Access is restricted to authorised members of the Editorial Office.

The standard period for preparing a peer-review report is two to four weeks from the reviewer’s acceptance of the invitation. The indicative period to the first editorial decision for manuscripts sent for external peer review is four to eight weeks.

These timeframes are indicative and may vary depending on the subject matter of the manuscript, the difficulty of identifying independent experts, the need for additional methodological or statistical assessment and the extent of the revisions required.