Peer review policy

  • New submitted articles are initially evaluated by technical staff for completeness and conformity to Guidelines for article submission.
  • Editorial board estimates initial evaluation results an assigns two reviewers – independent specialists, whose specialization is the closest one to the subject of the article.
  • Type of peer review: Double-blind reviewing, meaning that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous through all the process of reviewing.
  • The predefined term of reviewing is two weeks, however, this term can be prolonged depending upon the situation and the request of a reviewer.
  • The Editor provides Authors with the manuscript review, without revealing the names of the Reviewers

The Reviewer may find a manuscript:

- Suitable for printing in the author’s variant;

- Suitable for printing with regard for correction of specified shortcomings; (Without additional re-review)

- Recommended for additional reviewing to another specialist;

- Not suitable for printing.

  • The Editor-in-Chief examines opinions of the reviewers and approves or rejects the article for printing.
  • If an author does not agree with the review, he can send a justified reply to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Board takes a decision about suitability of the publication on the basis of the validity of the article and its compliance with the subject area of the journal. In conflict situations the decision is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

Each issue is finally approved by the Scientific Council of National Institute of Phthisiology and Pulmonology named after F.G. Yanovsky NAMS of Ukraine (the founding organization) at its regular meeting.