Peer-review Process

The Ukrainian Journal of Nephrology and Dialysis is committed to peer review integrity and adherence to the highest standards. To this end, the Journal employs a double-blind peer review process:

  • the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author/authors;
  • the author/authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the site. In addition, the initial evaluation of the manuscript considers whether it meets the goals of the Journal, and only those contributions that most closely meet our editorial criteria are forwarded for formal review. The primary expert review of manuscripts is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Those submissions deemed weak or otherwise inappropriate by the editors are immediately rejected without external review. Once a manuscript passes the initial review by the editors, it is assigned to at least 2 independent external experts for peer review. This identification is often based on the experts' recent publications in the field, their reputation, or recommendations from Editorial Board members.

Editors will check for conflicts of interest before contacting reviewers and will not consider reviewers with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest before reviewing a submitted manuscript.

To maintain objectivity, Editorial Board members do not edit their scientific papers if they occasionally submit manuscripts for publication. In such cases, external reviewers are chosen by other Board members without conflicts of interest. Decisions are made by Board members without conflicts with the authors.

After a manuscript evaluation, the reviewer should:

  • recommend the manuscript for publication;
  • recommend the manuscript for publication after revision by the author(s) taking into account the reviewers' comments;
  • reject the manuscript to be published.

To facilitate the review process, the editors recommend that reviewers use the standard review form.

The reviewer's evaluation of the manuscript is based on:

  • relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • the theoretical and applied value of the research conducted;
  • the correctness of the statistical methods used, their interpretation, and presentation;
  • the consistency of the author's conclusions with the stated research objective;
  • the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of the references used;
  • the scientific contribution of the author to the solution of the studied problem.

The Journal assesses the reviewers' recommendations and decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. If revision of the manuscript is required, the authors have to provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised.

After revision by the authors, the manuscript is reviewed again by the same reviewers, who, taking into account their comments, recommend or do not recommend the paper for publication and provide the reasons for their decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection after review. The Editorial Board will endeavor to evaluate the arguments of each reviewer and the authors before making a final judgment and may consider other facts not known to either party. If the reviewers disagree or the authors feel they have misunderstood a particular point, the editors may ask them for additional guidance.

The editors take the reviewers' criticisms seriously and are particularly reluctant to ignore technical criticisms. If only one reviewer disagrees with the publication, we may question the other reviewers to determine if they are applying an unjustified critical standard.