Peer review policy

All manuscripts (excluding editorial ones) submitted to The Journal are subject to double-anonymous (previously referred to as double-blind) peer review. In this model reviewer does not know who the authors of the article are, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewer.

Before review, all materials go through the initial review procedure, during which they are checked for compliance with the formal requirements set out on the website.

If the manuscript submitted for publication does not meet at least one of the submitted criteria, it is rejected without review, and the author receives a corresponding notification.

The detail of the reviewer comments as well as the overall recommendations would be considered by the Editor when making a decision, but ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor.

When The Journal receives a submission authored by either the Editor-in-Chief or one or more of the Associate Editors of that journal the following process will be used to evaluate the paper. The editorial team will assess the paper for suitability and assign an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member, to act as the handling Editor for that paper. The editorial team will oversee the peer review process and the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor, who authored the paper, will not be involved in any part of the peer review or decision making process for that paper. The editorial team will only liaise with the corresponding author according to the standard editorial practice of communicating with authors regarding their submission.

To review manuscripts received from the employees of the publishing institution (SI “V. Danilevsky Institute for Endocrine Pathology Problems of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”), the editorial office engages peer reviewers from other institutions.

The Journal do not permit authors to recommend peer reviewers.

 The editors strive to ensure that the author receives a review within an acceptable time frame, not exceeding one month.

The peer reviewer conducts the analysis in accordance with the requirements set forth on the journal's website under the heading OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS OF THE JOURNAL “PROBLEMS OF ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY”

The peer reviewer's conclusion can be the following:

1. "The article can be recommended for publication" - if the manuscript does not contain errors, meets the requirements of relevance and originality of scientific research. In this case, the manuscript is included in the list of intended publications for the journal.
2. "The article can be recommended for publication, provided that it is revised in accordance with the reviewer's comments." In this case, the article is sent to the author for processing, after receiving the revised text, it undergoes repeated review. If the reviewer maintains significant comments on the article, it is rejected by the decision of the editorial board without the right to further revision.
3. "The article cannot be recommended for publication." In this case, the article is rejected and can be re-examined only as a new manuscript after eliminating all identified deficiencies.

Copies of the review text are sent to the authors. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to send an appeal to the editor, which will be taken into account by the editorial board when deciding on the publication of the manuscript.

The editorial office maintains the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review and editorial decision-making process at all stages, while complying with data protection regulations (including GDPR).

The invited reviewer must declare any competing interest before submitting their report to the journal.

All peer reviewers should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a manuscript and throughout the peer review process.

In the process of investigating an ethical query, the submitted manuscript, author, reviewer and any other person (including whistleblowers) involved will be treated in confidence. During an investigation it may be necessary for the Editor to share information with third parties, such as the ethics committee and/or the authors’ institution.