Peer review (expert assessment) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of “Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series "Physics” and the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific articles. The purpose of the peer review is to contribute to the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

1. Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series "Physics”  adheres to double blind (anonymous) peer review:

   • the reviewers does not know the personal data of the authors;

   • the authors do not know the personal data of the reviewers.

2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are verified for compliance with the requirements posted in the section For Authors.

3. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. Submissions must match the topic of the journal. If the requirements for publication of the journal are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the authors from it.

4. Аnonymous article is sent by email:

   • to a member of the editorial board responsible for the subject area of the article;

   • to two external experts (reviewers).

   External reviewing involves Ukrainian and foreign doctors of sciences who are specialized in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for peer review. Anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. The reviewers cannot be affiliated with the same institution as the author and cannot be in a conflict of interest.

5. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:

   • correspondence of the content of the article to the subject stated in the title;

   • relevance and originality of the scientific problem considered in the article;

   • substantiation of the practical significance of the study;

   • value for a wide scope of readers.

6. After peer review of the article, reviewers can:

   • recommend the article for publication;

   • recommend the article for publication after minor revision;

   • recommend the article for publication after major revision;

   • recommend against the publication of the article.

7. If the reviewers' recommendation for the article is a rejection or revision, they must provide a written, reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviews signed by the reviewers with a conventional or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.

8. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles subject to revision are sent along with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for a second review, during which the reviewers may ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

9. The final decision on the recommendation of an article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, considering the reviews received and the results of manuscript verification for the presence of plagiarism.
    

STANDARD REVIEW FORM