Peer-review process
Peer review in the Public Health Journal is a key instrument for ensuring the quality, reliability, and scientific value of published articles. The review process is organized in a way that guarantees independence of expert assessment, impartiality of decisions, and compliance with international standards of scholarly communication.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model, in which anonymity is maintained for both authors and reviewers.
Stages of Peer Review
1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
At this stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript for its relevance to the journal’s thematic scope, level of scientific novelty, structure, and compliance with formatting requirements. In addition, an academic integrity check is performed using specialized plagiarism detection software.
Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be rejected without being forwarded for external peer review.
2. Assignment of Reviewers
Independent reviewers with relevant scientific specialization or clinical experience are engaged in the evaluation process. The editorial board seeks to ensure a balanced representation of national and international experts.
Prior to assignment, potential conflicts of interest are carefully assessed and excluded.
3. External Peer Review
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript in terms of: adequacy of presenting the relevance of the research topic;
justification of the relationship between the research problem and important scientific or practical tasks; appropriateness of applied methods and statistical approaches; completeness of the analysis of recent literature and studies in the field; validity and substantiation of obtained scientific results; ethical aspects of the research; scientific conclusions and their correspondence to the objectives of the study; prospects for further research in the given field.
The reviewer also assesses the author’s familiarity with the relevant scientific literature, as well as the language and writing quality of the manuscript, including clarity of expression and the need for additional scientific or linguistic editing.
The review must contain a clear and justified conclusion regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, including a description of major weaknesses, if present. The reviewer may issue one of the following recommendations:
- the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
- the article is recommended for publication after revision addressing the indicated comments;
- the article is rejected for publication due to specified reasons.
4. Editorial Decision
The Editorial Board makes the final decision based on reviewer reports. In case of significant disagreement between reviewers, additional peer review may be requested.
If accepted for publication, the manuscript is processed by technical and language editors. Minor stylistic, grammatical, or technical corrections that do not affect the scientific content may be introduced by editors without author approval.
5. Manuscript Revision Process
Authors are informed of the review results and the Editorial Board’s decision via email. If revisions are required, the editorial office sends the manuscript to the author with comments and suggestions for improvement. Authors are expected either to revise the manuscript accordingly or provide a reasoned rebuttal of the reviewers’ comments.
If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent for re-review.
Review Timeline
The average peer review period is 2–4 weeks; however, this timeframe may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.
Principles of Peer Review
The peer review process in the journal is guided by the following principles:
- confidentiality of all submitted materials;
- impartial and unbiased evaluation;
- objectivity and evidence-based conclusions;
- adherence to professional ethical standards;
- timely completion of the review process.
