Reviewing

General terms

Peer review is a critical assessment of manuscripts. Most submitted manuscripts are assessed by experts who are not part of the editorial board. The number and kinds of manuscripts sent for review, the number of reviewers, the reviewing procedures and the use made of the reviewers’ opinions may vary.

 

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. Reviewers 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.

 

The process of review

1.   

All manuscripts sent to the editorial office of “Oftalmologicheskii Zhurnal” are peer reviewed.

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 articles due to content conformity to subject and field of the journal and sends them to the members of the editorial board and council and field specialists to be reviewed.

6.   

Reviewers must assess the article within time limits as agreed with secretary and send review report or motivated refuse to the editorial office (via mail or e-mail).

7.   

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 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.

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 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.

 

.