Peer-review process

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the "Ukrainian Journal of Nephrology and Dialysis" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

The "Ukrainian Journal of Nephrology and Dialysis" uses Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • 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 procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the "Ukrainian Journal of Nephrology and Dialysis"

  1. 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.
  2. The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) determines the reviewer from the membership of the editorial board, who oversees the relevant scientific direction, for the article to be published.
  4. If the member of the editorial board is absence, the Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) will define the external reviewer for the provided article.
  5. Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).
  6. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
  • recommend article for posting;
  • recommend the article for its publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
  • do not recommend article for posting.
  1. After revision the reviewer has to recommend the article for posting it, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication with notice of the reason for the decision.
  2. The editor recommends using the developed standard review form.
  3. The reviewer should evaluate:
  • the topicality of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
  • correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
  • the consistency of the author's conclusions with existing scientific concepts;
  • adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources;
  • author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
  1. Scientific articles may be sent for further consideration:
  • insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
  • insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
  • acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  1. The executed review is sent to the editor by e-mail in the form of a scan copy.

The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.