The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the journal "Educational Challenges"
1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific, theoretical, practical level of the journal "Educational Challenges" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.
2. The journal "Educational Challenges" uses Double-Blind Peer Review:
- the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author / authors;
- the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.The scientific articles submitted undergo initial control first by technical support regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirementsset out on the site
3. The Editor-in-Chief (Depury editor) determines the reviewer from the reviewers’ bank who oversees the relevant scientific direction for the article or in disputable issue from the membership of the editorial board.
4. The Editor-in-Chief (Depury editor) determines the reviewer from the reviewers’ bank who oversees the relevant scientific direction for the article or in disputable issue from the membership of the editorial board.
- Reviewers should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).
5. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- Accept without revision;
- Accept after minor revision;
- Reconsider after major revision;
- Reject, especially because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, interest, or sound methodology.
The reviewer may give Specific Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions:
If the reviewer rejects the article, the review must state the reason for the decision. The editor recommends using the developed standard review form, which is available on the site's website, when reviewing.
6. When reviewing articles reviewers must:
- pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
- correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- assess how the author's conclusions are linked with the study purpose, and relate to existing scientific concepts;
- adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.
7. Scientific articles may be sent for further consideration:
- insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
- acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
8. The executed review is sent to the editor by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.
9. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.