Peer review policy

The peer review process proceeds in the following stages:

  1. Formal check of the article: the received article undergoes a formal check for compliance of the article's title with the journal's subject area and the formatting requirements posted on the website, covering the structure, formatting specifics, reference list, presentation of author information, etc. The scientific level of the article is not evaluated at this stage.
  2. Article registration: after the formal check, the article is registered and forwarded for the next check – assessment of the uniqueness of the author's text for the presence of plagiarism.
  3. Plagiarism check: performed using appropriate software that determines the article's uniqueness level, the sources used, and partial text matches (plagiarism). If an unacceptable level of textual borrowing is detected, the article will be rejected, and the author (contact person) will receive a notification to the email address from which the article was submitted to the editorial office.

The check is conducted in accordance with the Regulation on the Organisation and Procedure for Checking Academic Texts of Staff and Students for Textual Borrowings, approved by a resolution of the Academic Council of SBTU (Minutes No. 2 of 25.10.2024). (https://biotechuniv.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/pol-pro-plagiat-25v.pdf)

Assignment of reviewers: upon successful completion of the plagiarism check, the article is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for the assignment of reviewers from among leading specialists (members of the journal's editorial board and, where necessary, independent external reviewers) who have a scientific specialisation most closely aligned with the topic of the article and have no conflict of interest, of which the reviewer must notify the editorial office upon receiving the manuscript for review.

  1. Peer review of the article: the article manuscript undergoes double-blind (double-anonymised) peer review by two reviewers. The personal data of the author(s) are not disclosed to the reviewer; the personal data of the reviewer are not disclosed to the author(s). Reviewers assess the relevance, the theoretical and methodological level, the practical value, and the scientific significance of the publication; they determine the correctness of the mathematical derivations, graphs, and figures presented; they assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts; they evaluate the authors' compliance with the rules of academic ethics and the accuracy of references to literature sources. Where necessary, they provide recommendations regarding clarifications, the elimination of shortcomings, and the correction of spelling and punctuation errors. The review period for a scientific publication must not exceed 14 days. At the reviewer's request, the review period may be extended. After completing the analysis of the manuscript, the reviewer fills in a standardised form that includes final recommendations and, where necessary, a comment (Reviewer's conclusion: Recommended for publication; Recommended for revision; Not recommended for publication). The editorial office notifies the author of the review results and comments by email. The editorial office sends authors copies of the reviews (anonymised, without disclosure of the reviewer's data) or a reasoned rejection from the editorial board regarding the publication of the given manuscript.
  2. Manuscript revision: in the event that shortcomings are identified, authors are given up to 14 days to correct them, prepare an updated version of the manuscript, and resubmit it to the reviewer for a final decision on the possibility of publication. The maximum period of working with the reviewer must not exceed 30 days.
  3. Date of acceptance of the scientific publication for print: the date on which the editorial office receives the reviewer's positive conclusion regarding the appropriateness and possibility of publishing the article manuscript.
  4. Additional peer review: the Editor-in-Chief has the right to send a manuscript for additional review by another expert (reviewer) in the event of contentious issues or the existence of a conflict of interest.
  5. Appealing reviewer comments: if an author disagrees with a review, they have the right to submit to the editorial office a scientifically substantiated response, on the basis of which the editorial board decides on the appropriateness of publishing the work in the journal or rejecting it.
  6. Final decision on publication of an article: is made by the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief forwards the author's text marked "For publication" to the next stages: technical editing and layout preparation for posting on the journal's website and printing by the publisher. The final issue of the journal is recommended for publication by the Academic Council of the State Biotechnological University (the founding organisation) at its regular meeting.
  7. Original articles and reviews are stored in the editorial office for three years.