1. General
2. Order of Passing of Manuscripts
3. Peer Review
4. Results of Peer Review
5. Basic Grounds for Finishing off the Article
6. The Repeated Peer Review of the Article Manuscript and Answers for the Remarks of Reviewers
7. Reasons of Refuse for Publication of the Articles

1. General

The order of peer review of the manuscripts determines the procedure of monitoring the manuscripts, presented by authors to the journal "Preschool Education: Global Trends", and standards of the articles, which determine quality of the published materials. The process of the peer review of scientific articles is orientated on establishment of the degree of their value, originality, actuality and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of journal, fitness of manuscript for a publication with taking into account the requirements of the Committee on ethics in publications – Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and by support on experience of leading scientific concords; on the increase of high quality of the printed matters, overcoming of prejudice and injustice at a rejection or acceptance of the articles.

The aim of peer review is standard-setting of authorial manuscripts quality.

The tasks of peer review consist in verification of:

  • general scientific level of the article, in particular research actuality, presence of problem in it, its meaningfulness for decision of the important scientific and practical tasks, correctness and expediency of methods application at the conducted researches, level of generalization at formulation of research conclusions and others like that;
  • semantic filling and framework of the article;
  • correctness of the use of professional (special) vocabulary and others like that.

In journal the regulation of double «blind» (anonymous) peer review is observed: the authors are not revealed to the names of reviewers, the reviewers are not revealed to the names of authors. Co-operation of reviewers and authors is carried out only through the members of Editorial board.

The Editorial board nobody reveals the information which touches a manuscript (table of contents, process of peer review, critical remarks of reviewers, final decision), except the members of editorial college of journal, the author and reviewers.

Reviews appear only to the members of editorial board of journal and author.

Terms of reviewing are determined with orders and quantity of manuscripts sent to the editorship.

Positive reviews, which assure the possibility of publishing of the articles, are made public on the sittings of International Editorial Council and Editorship.

Terms of reviewing of the article are from the day the article was got for reviewing and are from one until two months.

Back to top

2. Order of Passing of Manuscripts

  1. Articles that do not correspond to the scientific profile of the journal are not sent for review. The information about refusal and its further publication sent to the author.
  2. An author gives to the editorial the article which answers the requirements of the policy of journal. Manuscripts which do not answer the accepted requirements are not registered and shut out to further consideration, about what it is revealed to their authors.
  3. The unique registration code which provides the author’s anonymity at peer review is appropriated to manuscripts, presented for a publication in journal.
  4. In all manuscripts which are given on peer review, the degree of unicity and originality of authorial text is necessarily determined by means of corresponding software (Unicheck).
  5. In case of accordance of manuscript to the requirements of the policy of journal and rules of preparation of articles to the edition, and also at presence of positive result of verification in the system Plagiarist a manuscript is refered for examination to the specialist on the corresponding area of knowledge.

Back to top

3. Peer Review

Every article, presented in the release of journal, passes necessarily the procedure of peer review. It is orientated on the maximally objective and impartial estimation of maintenance of the scientific article, determination of its accordance to the international requirements which are pulled (or produced) out to the articles of scientific editions, competent, comprehensive and sound analysis of both positive internals of the articles and its concrete defects and provides for the following:

  1. Scientific articles, which come to editorship, are passing the primary control viewing the journal profile, completeness and accuracy of their execution according the journal rules of execution, shown on the site (see Guidelines for Author(s) ).
  2. Primary expert evaluation of scientific article is done by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor.
  3. The manuscript submitted to the editorial board is given to two reviewers according to the type of research. The editor-in-chief of the journal appoints the reviewers. Under certain circumstances the Editor-in-chief can charge setting of reviewers to the member of Editorial Board. In some cases the question of the choice of reviewers can be decided on meeting of editorial college. On decision of editor-in-chief the urgent articles of the prominent scientists which are given to editing on initiative and request of the editorial board, can be released from standard procedure of peer review.
  4. Peer review is conducted confidentially on principle of double-blind (bilateral «blind» co-operation, when neither author nor reviewer knows about each other). Communication between author and reviewers takes place virtually (by e-mail, or through the responsible secretary of the journal). At the instance of a reviewer and in concordance with the working group of editorial college the co-operation between the author and a reviewer can happen in the open mode (such decision is accepted only in case when a direct interpersonal co-operation will allow the improvement of style and logic of the research material and foreign highly skilled specialists (mostly doctors of sciences, professors), which own the fundamental psycholinguistic knowledge, competences and experience in this scientific direction.
  5. A reviewer can not be a co-author of the article which is criticized, and also scientific leaders of scientific degree obtainers.
  6. On receipt by editorial board of the manuscript of article, a reviewer in a 7-daily term estimates the possibility of materials observation, coming from accordance of the own qualification in direction of researches of the author of article and absence of any conflict of scientific interests. In case of presence of any prejudice and contradictory of interests which are in a state of competition or different looks, a reviewer must refuse from examination of the article and report the editorial college about it. The last must decide a question in relation to setting of other expert.
  7. The Reviewer sends a conclusion to the Editorial Board of journal about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the article publishing. The terms of viewing in every special case can be changed according to the conditions, creation of which are necessary for the optimal objective valuation of the manuscript.
  8. After final observation of the article a reviewer fills the standardized form (reference) which contains his final conclusions. At preparation of this form was used and generalized by editorial board the position of confessed recommendations in relation to the procedure of peer review Review Quality Instrument.
  9. The release of journal sends to an e-mail of the author a report with the results of peer review of the article.

Back to top

4. Result of Peer Review

On inquire of the author the Editorial Board informs about its decision to accept the article for publication. The decisions could be as following: (1) to recommend the article for publishing in the author’s variant, (2) to recommend for publishing after the correction, accepting the remarks and proposals of the reviewer, (3) necessary additional reviewing and appointment of other reviewer after correction of the article taking into consideration the remarks and proposals, which were done by the reviewer, (4) reject the article.

  1. If in a review there are remarks with a suggestion of the necessity to finish off the article (to bring some corrections), the article is sent to the author for its improvement and presentation of the renewed variant, or correct and sure refutation of the noted defects, or substantiated motivation of those authorial positions which are perceived as inappropriate and inadvisable. To the renewed article an author adds taking into account an idea of the reviewer a letter, which contains answers for all remarks and explanations to made alterations. The improved variant of the article repeatedly gets to the reviewer for the acceptance of the repeated decision and in case of consent with the author of preparation of the explained conclusion about possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article to printing is considered the date of receipt by release of a positive conclusion of the reviewer (or decision of editorial college) in relation to justification of publication of the article in this scientific edition.
  2. The reasons of the repeated reviewing could be: declared by the reviewer insufficient qualification in questions, which are viewed in the scientific article; insufficient high level of the primary expert conclusion; sharp statements of discussions given in the scientific article.
  3. In case of occurring of debatable situations and in case of disagreement of author with the opinion of a reviewer the article is examined on meeting of working group of editorial college, which organizes the additional or repeated peer review by other specialist. An editorial college reserves a right on the rejection of the articles in case of insolvency of author to refute the arguments or his unwillingness to take into account their suggestions and remarks expressed by reviewers. On call of the first reviewer the editorial college can give the article to other reviewer with the obligatory observance of principles of double-blind peer review.
  4. A final decision in relation to possibility of publication of the article which subject to the additional or repeated peer review is accepted by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his errand – member of editorial college), and if necessary – meeting of editorial college. Upon receipt decision about admitting of the article to publication the responsible secretary informs about it his author and reports the expected term of publication producing.
  5. In case of receipt of positive decision about expedience of publication of the repeatedly reviewed article the last enters the editorial portfolio of journal and in order of its turn and taking into account its actuality subjects to publication. On occasion (in decision of editor-in-chief) the article is published extraordinarily in the nearest producing of journal.
  6. An editorial board reserves a right for the scientific and literary editing of the maintenance of article in a concordance with an author. The insignificant corrections of lexico-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, lingually-stylistic or formally-technical character, which do not influence on the quality of maintenance of the article, are brought in by a typotext without a concordance with an author. At the necessity of finding out of separate questions which arose up, or in connection with the desire of an author of manuscript the last return to him as a model for approval.
  7. The Release gives to a certificate about the acceptance of the article to publication over the signature of Editor-in-Chief.
  8. The date of the article acceptance for publishing is the date when the Editorial Board decides to publish the article in one or the other issue of the scientific edition.

Back to top

5. Basic Grounds for Finishing off the Article

Basic grounds for the improvement of the article are considered the next:

  1. The article does not contain summary in Ukrainian and English languages, or in case of its presence it does not answer the set requirements as to the amount of signs.
  2. The structure of the article does not answer requirements (see Guidelines for Author(s)).
  3. A table of article contents is not enough detailed for readers, that they to a full degree were able to understand the approach, offered by an author.
  4. The article does not contain a scientific novelty.
  5. In the article it is not marked clearly, what part of text or conclusions represents an innovation in science, unlike that it is already known.
  6. If any breaking of the author’s rights of other scientists have been revealed (interference in their intellectual ownership, rudeness in citations, absence of references etc.).
  7. The manuscript does not confirm the adequacy of the given facts and dates, and unsubstantiated conclusions.
  8. The list of literature does not contain scientific sources, the last names of authors which are remembered in text of the article.
  9. The article contains theories, conceptions, empiric materials, conclusions and others like that, which are fully indehiscent and not confirmed by the presented data, arguments or given information.
  10. The article does not provide sufficient description of methods and materials which in case of necessity would allow other scientists to repeat an experiment.
  11. In the article the clear descriptions or explanations are absent, for example hypotheses which were checked up, maintenance and essence of experiments, examples of statistical data or experimental selections and others like that.
  12. Procedure of the conducted experiment is abortively and incomprehensibly described in the article, errors are suffered in statistical indexes.
  13. The article does not correspond the norms of culture and oral and writing speech.
  14. Transliteration of the list of used literature is absent.
  15. The list of references does not include references to domestic and foreign works reflecting new research.

Back to top

6. The Repeated Peer Review of the Article Manuscript and Answers for the Remarks of Reviewers

The repeated peer review of the article and preparation of answers made by an author for the remark of reviewers mean that the author must undertake the next steps:

  1. To pay attention to all remarks, given by an editor and reviewer (-wers).
  2. To conduct all additional experiments or carry out a retest, taking into account the analytical reasonings and recommendations of reviewers.
  3. To comment on all changes, done in maintenance of the article, and send them as a reverse letter to electronic address:
  4. To provide a tolerant scientific answer on all debatable questions. To designate the points of remarks, which an author agrees with, and with which - no.
  5. To mark clearly all changes in the article which were brought in at its revision (to distinguish by a color).
  6. To turn the revised manuscript in a reverse letter in terms, set by an editor(-s).

Back to top

7. Reasons of Refuse for Publication of the Articles

Grounds for declining of an article for publication make the next factors:

  1. Verification of manuscript of the article in the system Unicheck did not give a positive result.
  2. The article does not correspond the scientific profile of the journal.
  3. The article does not correspond the requirements, foreseen legislatively by standardized approaches to scientific articles set by MES of Ukraine and by international conventions.
  4. The remarks and wishes of reviewers concerning debatable questions which arose up at peer review are not taken into account.
  5. On the basis of expert estimation of two reviewers the editorial college made a decision about returning to the author of a manuscript without a right for its resubmitting in a release.

Back to top