Uman National University | today: 04/29/2026
"Collection of Scientific Works of Uman National University" adheres to a double-blind peer review policy, under which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
Manuscripts received by the journal are assigned, in accordance with the research profile, to members of the editorial board or other experts at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The main criteria for the Editor-in-Chief’s assessment of a manuscript are: originality of content, high quality, scholarly novelty and relevance to a broad readership.
Reviewers are selected by the editorial board on the basis of scholarly specialisation, research experience and publication record in the relevant field. All reviewers are obliged to uphold the principles of academic integrity and to declare the absence of conflicts of interest. Two independent reviewers are assigned for each article, selected for their thematic and methodological relevance. Where necessary, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, external specialists holding a scholarly degree and/or academic title may be engaged in the review process.
As a general rule, specialists working at the same institution where the work was performed are not engaged as reviewers.
Reviewers are not permitted to copy manuscript materials.
The author is given the opportunity to read the text of the review.
If the review of the article indicates the need for revisions, it is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of receipt at the editorial office is the date of return of the revised article.
If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office. The article may be sent for re-review or for consideration by the editorial board.
The decision on the advisability of publication after peer review is made by the Editor-in-Chief, and where necessary, by the editorial board as a whole.
Peer Review Procedure
Preliminary review. Upon receipt at the editorial office, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary review conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. At this stage, the material’s alignment with the profile of the Collection, compliance with formal formatting requirements, and a check for improper borrowings are established. Manuscripts that do not meet the established requirements are not admitted for further consideration, and authors receive a corresponding notification. An accepted manuscript is assigned a registration code, after which the authors’ details are removed.
External peer review. The anonymised manuscript is sent to two independent external reviewers – experts in the relevant field of knowledge. Both national and international scholars who have no conflict of interest with the authors and are not affiliated with the same institution are engaged as reviewers. Reviewers are obliged to adhere to the principle of confidentiality and to notify the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest.
The review is conducted using a standardised form covering the following key aspects of manuscript assessment: alignment with the thematic scope of the Collection, scholarly novelty and originality, quality of the abstract and keywords, structure and logic of presentation, soundness of the methodological approach, reliability and accuracy of the presentation of results, substantiveness of the discussion and conclusions, and compliance of the reference list with established requirements.
Peer Review Outcomes. Based on the review, the reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:
In the case of rejection or referral for revision, the reviewer is obliged to provide a written and reasoned justification for their decision.
Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the authors together with the text of the review without disclosing the identity of the reviewers. The revised version is submitted for re-examination. No more than two rounds of review are permitted. Revision does not guarantee acceptance of the article; if the changes are deemed insufficient, the manuscript may be rejected.
Final Decision. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, taking into account all arguments and compliance of the material with the requirements of the Collection. In the case of a conflict of interest on the part of the Editor-in-Chief, the decision is transferred to the deputy or another authorised member of the editorial board. Reviews are retained by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the relevant issue.
Estimated Review Timelines. Preliminary review – up to 15 calendar days. External peer review – 2–4 weeks. Average time to first decision – 4–8 weeks.