The review process

Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Human and nation’s health". The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, providing an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as determining the quality of its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

1. The journal "Human and nation’s health" adheres to double-blind (anonymous) peer review:

reviewers do not know the authors' personal data;
the authors do not know the reviewer's personal data.

2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements placed in the section of the Terms of publication. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the section Requirements for submission, which have passed the initial editorial control and copyright check, are admitted to the review stage.

3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. Submitted materials must be relevant to the magazine's theme. If the journal's publication requirements are met, the article is forwarded to the Technical Editor, who assigns the article a registration code and removes the author(s) from the article.

4. An anonymous article is sent by e-mail:

a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
to two external independent experts (reviewers).

Ukrainian and foreign doctors of science specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in the external review. On behalf of the editors, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. Attached to the letter is an anonymous article and a standard review form. Reviewers may not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and may not have a conflict of interest.

5. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues:

compliance of the content of the article with the topic stated in the title;
relevance and novelty of the scientific problem discussed in the article;
justification of the practical significance of the conducted research;
value for a wide range of readers.

6. Reviewers fill out standard review forms and choose one of the options:

to recommend an article for publication;
recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
to recommend the article for publication after significant revisions;
do not recommend an article for publication.

If the reviewers' recommendation for the article is rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. The manuscript should be reviewed by independent experts in the field of research within two weeks of receipt of the article. Reviews signed by reviewers with a regular or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.

7. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles to be revised are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, in the process of which the reviewers can ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.

8. The final decision on recommending an article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the reviews received and the results of checking manuscripts for plagiarism. If the article is accepted for publication, the editorial board prepares the magazine issue in accordance with the technological process.