Peer-review process

The review of the manuscripts submitted to the КJMPP is carried out in order to ensure the proper scientific and theoretical level of the journal and to prevent the violation of the principles of academic (scientific) integrity. Prior to reviewing each article is checked for uniqueness. Authors whose articles contain plagiarism or previously published data are informed of inability to publish submissions.

More information on the review process.

Review Procedure
We apply a double-blind review procedure (the reviewer receives the text of the article without the author's name; the author never receives information about who is the reviewer of his article).
Each article is submitted for review by two leading Ukrainian or foreign specialists. If the article receives both positive and negative reviews, the editor appoints a third reviewer and a decision on the quality of the material is made on the basis of conclusions of the three reviewers.

Review period should not exceed 3 months.

Reviewers rate the article by the following parameters:

  1. Doe the article fit the journal profile?
  2. Is the issue addressed by the article 1) enounced?
    2) topical?
  3. Is justification of the relevance of the study 1) described sufficiently? 2) made on the basis of modern reliable data?
  4. Does methodological part of the study 1) relate to the issue? 2) contain all the necessary components? 3) Do the methods used meet the objectives, are the methods correct?
  5. Is the data obtained during the study: 1) consistently and correctly presented?
    2) sufficiently and properly analyzed? 3) interpreted with reference to the data of other publications?
  6. Does research methodology or presentation of the results reflect   ethical issues (or) possible ethical dilemmas – if required?
  7. Are the results obtained:  1) significant? 2) original?
  8. Has the goal been achieved, or have the objectives of the study been accomplished?
  9. Are conclusions (or final clauses) of the article: 1) enounced? 2) justified?
    3) Do they meet the task? 4) Do they contain novelty? 4) Are they convincing?
  10. Has there been any evidence of investigation integrity breach in the review process: 1) plagiarism? 2) self-plagiarism? 3) data fabrication?
    4) data falsification? 5) copyright infringement?
  11. Do synopses: 1) sufficiently reflect the content of the article? 2) contain a description of the problem, method and research findings? 3) meet the size requirements?
  12. Key words: informative, relevant?
  13. Is UDC index: 1) present 2) Does it correspond to the content of the article?
  14. Is the article structured (does it contain the following sections: introduction, research method, results, discussion of results, conclusions or final provisions)?
  15. Is the factual data in the text and illustrations: 1) well presented? 2) convincing?
  16. Are illustrations: 1) informative and explanatory? 2) correctly executed? 3) of acceptable quality?
  17. Are references: 1) provided to all factual and quantitative data? 2) correctly presented in the text?
  18. Does the list of sources used 1) contain a fair number of contributions? 2) contain reliable sources? 3) contain sufficient number of scientific publications in the last 5 years? 4) Is it presented in АРА style? 5) Is it correctly presented?
  19. Are the standards met by: 1) the quality of language? 2) the style of presentation? 3) the design of the article?
  20. Is all the necessary information about the author (s) provided in two languages& Does it include ORCID and email addresses?

Reviewers fill out a form indicating the compliance of the material with the above criteria and express their opinion regarding the publication of the article:

  1. Accept for publication unchanged.
    2. Recommend the author to eliminate the shortcomings (follow the recommendations of the reviewers).
    3. Reject with the right of substantial сrevision and resubmission.
    4. Reject because the article does not fit the journal profile.
    5. Reject because the author violated the rules of research integrity.

After receiving reviewers' recommendations for revising the article, the author should remedy the shortcomings of the text within a period not exceeding two weeks. After that the article is subject to re-review and in case of incomplete or not qualitative elimination of defects can be rejected.

The editorial staff reserves the right to edit the article stylistically and grammatically. In case of substantial changes, the version prepared for publication is sent to the author (s) for approval.