Review procedure
Reviewing is a mandatory component of the editorial process of the Ukrainian Highway Journal and is aimed at maintaining a high scientific level of the publication. Its main task is to select manuscripts for publication, impartially assess the quality of scientific materials, as well as verify their compliance with scientific, linguistic and ethical requirements.
During their work, reviewers must be objective and adhere to the following principles:
- The journal uses a double “blind” (anonymous) review system:
- the reviewer does not have information about the author’s identity;
- the author does not have information about the reviewer’s identity.
- All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are initially checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the FOR AUTHOR section. Only those materials that are designed in accordance with the specified requirements and have passed a preliminary editorial check are allowed for review.
- The article is checked by the academic anti-plagiarism system StrikePlagiarism. If the percentage of originality is lower than 70%, the material is not allowed for further review and is returned to the author. If the manuscript meets the established requirements, the final editor assigns the article a registration number and removes information about the author or authors, ensuring anonymity.
- Next, the anonymous article is sent by e-mail to the reviewer.
Ukrainian and foreign scientists specializing in the relevant field are involved in external review. On behalf of the editorial office, they are sent a letter with a request to review, to which the anonymous text of the article and the standard review form are attached. Signed reviews (in paper or electronic form) are stored by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the relevant article was published.
During the review, experts assess the following aspects:
Relevance of the study – whether the study is of importance for science and practice.
Literature analysis – whether the cited sources reflect the current state of research on the selected topic.
The purpose and objectives of the study – how clearly and correctly they are formulated.
Research methods – whether the selected methods are justified and sufficient to solve the tasks set.
Reliability and correctness of the results – whether the results obtained correspond to the methods used.
Scientific novelty and significance – the degree of originality and value of the results obtained.
Conclusions – their content and correspondence to the tasks set and the results of the study.
Practical significance – the possibility of using the results obtained in practice.
Title of the article – its correspondence to the content of the study.
Design of the article – compliance with the requirements of the journal.
The reviewer fills out the standard review form and selects one of the solution options:
- a) The manuscript of the publication corresponds to the scientific topic of the journal, namely (specify the specialty), the topic of the publication is relevant (specify why), contains new scientific results (specify which ones), and can be published in the National Journal of Ukrainian Highwaymen (without comments and suggestions);
- b) The manuscript of the publication corresponds to the scientific topics of the journal, namely (specify the specialty), the topic of the publication is relevant (specify why), contains new scientific results (specify which ones), and can be published in the National Journal of Road Traffic of Ukraine after eliminating the comments and taking into account the submitted suggestions (provide suggestions) (without additional review);
- c) The manuscript of the publication corresponds to the scientific topics of the journal, namely (specify the specialty), the topic of the publication is relevant (specify why), contains new scientific results (specify which ones), and can be published in the National Journal of Road Traffic of Ukraine after revision in accordance with the submitted comments and suggestions. It is recommended to send the manuscript to the author(s) for revision with subsequent review of the new version of the manuscript;
- d) Refuse to publish due to the inconsistency of the manuscript of the publication with the scientific topics of the collection / irrelevance of the topic, / absence of new scientific results in the manuscript of the publication / indicate another reason (outdated material, plagiarism, illiterate presentation of the content, etc.).
In case of refusal or the need for revision, the reviewer provides a written justification for his decision. An independent expert must review the manuscript within two weeks from the moment of its receipt.
The decision of the editorial board is notified to the authors. If revision is necessary, the authors are sent the text of the review without indicating the reviewer’s data. The corrected version of the article can be resubmitted for review. In this case, the reviewers have the right to suggest additional changes. Submission of a revised article does not guarantee its acceptance; if the changes made are recognized as insufficient, the article may be rejected.
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 the manuscript for plagiarism.
In case of a positive decision, the editorial board begins preparing the journal issue in accordance with the established editorial and publishing process. If the article is rejected, the editorial board does not engage in further discussion with the authors regarding this decision.