For Reviewers

Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) is a journal that follows the ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.(ICMJE's for the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

Peer-review policy

Peer review is a critical assessment of manuscripts. All manuscripts submitted to Oftalmologicheskii Zhurnal that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final. Moreover, the reviewer's identity is kept anonymous from the authors.

Editors avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest. Authors can provide editors with names of persons they feel shouldn’t be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflict of interests with explanation their concerns. Since single-blind peer review is used, the reviewers can see the author's details. So, they must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript. They should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors make clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are the private property of the authors and therein information mustn’t be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for confidentiality. In submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. Authors’ rights may be violated by disclosure of the confidential details during review of their manuscript. Editors do not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if there is a claim of the unreliability or falsity of evidence, in all other cases, the confidentiality must not be violated. Reviewer’s comments are not published or otherwise publicized without permission of the reviewer, author, and editor.

When a manuscript is rejected, delete copies of it are deleted from our editorial system.

When a manuscript is published, the journal keeps copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondence for at least three years to help answer future questions about the work should they arise.

Editorial decisions are based on the relevance of a manuscript to the journal and on the manuscript’s originality, quality, and contribution to evidence about important questions. Those decisions are not influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships or agendas. 

The process of review

1. All manuscripts sent to the editorial office of “Oftalmologicheskii Zhurnal” are peer reviewed (single - blind peer review).

2. An article is submitted only if it conforms to all requirements to authors for publishing in Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine)

3. All materials are sent to the editorial office in two copies and must conform to all requirements to authors for publishing in Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) (see Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) №6, 2012) 

4. The article is registered by a secretary in the Articles Register with date of submitting, title, author(s) initials and place of work pointed. The article is assigned a unique registration number. 

5. Secretary estimates the article due to content conformity to subject and field of the journal and sends it to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors.  

6. Reviewers must assess the article within time limits as agreed with secretary and send the review report or motivated refuse to the editorial office (via mail or e-mail). Since single-blind peer review is used, the reviewers can see the author's details. So, they must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript.

7. Reviewers provide the written reports with the conclusion about advisability of publication is given in the end of the report. The reviewer:

· Recommends the article to be published;

· Recommends the article to be published after revision due to notes;

· Does not recommend the article to be published.

If the reviewer recommends the article to be published after revision due to notes or does not recommend the article to be published, the report must include the reasons of this decision. 

8. After getting the review reports, all manuscripts are discussed at the editorial board meeting and the final decision on their publishing or not publishing is accepted. According to the decision, secretary sends letters to authors (via mail or e-mail). The letter includes general assessment of the article, recommendation for revision, and the reasons of rejection if the article is not accepted. However, the reviewer's identity is kept anonymous from the authors. 

9. If the author doesn’t agree with a reviewer’s point of view, the author can give a reasonable answer. The article can be sent to the additional review or coordination to the editorial board.

10. In reasonable cases articles can be sent to the additional and anonymous review.

11. External reviewers can be engaged in cases as follows: absence of the editorial board member in a certain field; an editorial board member cannot prepare a review; editorial council doesn’t agree with a point of view in the report; the article is sent by an editorial board member. At the regular meeting the editorial board accepts the decision to invite a scientist in the certain field.

12. Articles sent to authors for revision must be returned to the editorial board no later than in a month. If the article is returned later, the date of its submitting changes as well. A new article is registered in the Article Register.

13. Secretary analyzes the articles according to the review reports and corrections, inserted by the authors, and presents them for final decision.

14. The editorial board makes the final decision about publication of the article.

15. The editorial board informs the author about the decision in the terms no more than three months since submitting. It must attach a copy of review report if it is negative or contains critical comments.

Selecting peer-reviewers

The choice of peer-reviewers is based on many factors including expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, reputation, and our own experience of collaboration with each reviewer. So, the previous performance of the reviewer, including quality and timeliness, is considered. Authors can suggest potential reviewers for their articles; however, the decision is of the Editorial Board. Selected reviewers are provided with the manuscript’s abstract and requested to accept or decline the invitation to review within 3 days of the request. The full paper is accessible after the reviewer accepts the invitation. If a reviewer cannot complete the review for any reason, including a conflict of interest, or lack of time, the reviewer informs the Editorial Board within 3 days and if possible suggests other qualified reviewers.  

Writing the review

Reviewers must assess the article within time limits as agreed with secretary and send the review report or motivated refuse to the editorial office (via mail or e-mail). The reviewers provide written reports which include:

· Assessment of subject and possibility of its publishing in the journal

· Assessment of content: evidence, novelty, significance and importance of conclusions.

· Notes on text presentation and article design.

·  Recommendations on improving the text.

The reviewers are offered to answer the following questions to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

  1. Is the submission original?
  2. Does the paper fit the scope of the journal?
  3. Would the paper be of interest to the readership of the journal?
  4. Does the paper help to expand or further research in this subject area?
  5. Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
  6. Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a paper is high or low?
  7. Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
  8. Is the paper complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
  9. Is the title of the article appropriate and clear?
  10. Is the abstract clear, accessible, and in the correct form?
  11. Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?
  12. Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted? Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
  13. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  14. Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
  15. Is all of the discussion relevant?
  16. Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or statistics given by the author?
  17. Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
  18. Should it be added experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision?