- In the journal “Ukrainian Dental Almanac” a double blind (anonymous) review is applied:
- Scientific articles submitted to the Editorial Office undergo primary control regarding the completeness and correctness of their drawing up and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements posted on the site.
- The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
- For the article submitted for publication, the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines a reviewer from the members of the Editorial Board who supervises the corresponding scientific field.
- In the absence of a member of the Editorial Board, the curator of the corresponding direction, the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines the external reviewer for the given work.
- Reviewers (both members of the Editorial Board and external ones) should be experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably over the past 5 years).
- When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should evaluate:
- Statement of the problem in general form and its connection with important scientific and practical tasks.
- Analysis of recent researches and publications in which the solution to this problem is initiated and on which the author relies.
- Highlighting previously unsolved parts of the general problem to which this article is devoted.
- Scientific novelty of the research.
- Correspondence of the title and summary to the content of the article.
- Clarity, logic, consistency of presentation of the main material in the article.
- The validity and credibility of conclusions and directions for future research.
- A sufficient number of sources used and their relevance to the content.
- Qualitative design of drawings.
- After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after its author’s revision, taking into account the comments and suggestions made;
- not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its follow-up revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.
The Editorial Board recommends using the standard form of review developed by the Editorial Board, which is available on the journal’s website.
In some cases, the Editorial Board may direct the article to additional review, including statistical and methodological review.
- The reviewer sends the completed review to the Editor by email in the form of a scanned copy.
- The Editorial Board sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the information about the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the Editorial Board to publish this particular manuscript.
- Only after the final agreement with the author(s) of all questions related to the content of the material (including re-review, if the previous review required revision), the article is considered accepted for publication.
- The Editorial Board decides if the article is included in the issue (number) edition.
- The article is transmitted for publication.
The journal is an open resource, it accepts and places materials in accordance with the requirements of Editorial policy and upon condition of their compliance with current requirements of regulatory legal acts of Ukraine.
All claims, comments and questions regarding the activities of the scientific publication should be sent to the address of electronic or regular mail.