Review Policy

  1. General Provisions

The scholarly professional journal “Bulletin of the Penitentiary Association of Ukraine” ensures mandatory peer review of all manuscripts submitted for publication in order to guarantee a high scientific standard, objective evaluation, and adherence to the principles of academic integrity,  as well as for the purpose of selecting scientific articles that meet the regulations (policies) and requirements of the scientific journal.

The editorial peer review policy is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the manuscript’s scientific merit, the results of independent expert evaluation, and its relevance to the journal’s scope. 

  1. Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a Double-Blind Peer Review process, under which:

  • reviewers do not have access to information about the authors;
  • authors do not have access to information about the reviewers.

This ensures independence, impartiality, and objectivity of the evaluation. Peer review is conducted without bias regarding gender, race, nationality, religious beliefs, institutional affiliation of the authors, or other characteristics. 

  1. Selection and Requirements for Reviewers

Peer review involves:

  • members of the editorial board;
  • independent scholars with relevant expertise.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers (at least one of whom is independent).

Reviewers must:

  • hold a scientific degree (PhD or Doctor of Sciences);
  • have relevant publications in Ukrainian professional journals and/or journals indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science (preferable);
  • adhere to principles of confidentiality and objectivity;
  • declare the absence of conflicts of interest;
  • not use manuscript materials for personal purposes;
  • have no co-authorship with the author within the last 3 years;
  • avoid institutional conflicts of interest (no more than one reviewer from the author’s institution). 
  1. Stages of Peer Review

4.1. Initial Editorial Screening

The manuscript is checked for:

  • compliance with the journal’s scope;
  • adherence to technical requirements;
  • signs of academic misconduct (plagiarism) using StrikePlagiarism.

Non-compliant manuscripts may be rejected without peer review.

4.2. Assignment of Reviewers

The manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

The editorial office ensures:

  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • compliance with reviewer requirements;
  • appropriate level of reviewer expertise.

4.3. Expert Evaluation

Peer review is conducted within up to 60 days (may vary depending on the length and complexity of the manuscript).

If necessary (e.g., provision of additional data, verification of research results, statistical analysis, etc.), the review period may be extended. Additional materials are also subject to review by reviewers.

Reviewers complete a standardized evaluation form and provide a reasoned report.

The author receives anonymized reviews and has the right to submit a revised manuscript for re-review. The author may also submit a reasoned appeal against the editorial decision.

4.4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviews, the editorial office may decide to:

  • accept the manuscript;
  • accept with revisions;
  • request re-review;
  • reject the manuscript.

In case of significant discrepancies between reviews, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer or considered by the editorial board.

In case of rejection of the manuscript or the presence of comments from the reviewers, in accordance with the principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), the editorial board initiates a scientifically sound discussion with the author(s).

If the author(s) disagree with the review, he/she has the right to provide a convincing explanation to the editorial board of the scientific journal. Under such conditions, the scientific article is analyzed at a meeting of the editorial board.

  1. Manuscript Revision

Authors receive anonymized reviews and are required to:

  • address the reviewers’ comments;
  • submit a revised version of the manuscript;
  • provide a reasoned response to comments if necessary.

The revised manuscript may be subject to re-review.

  1. Appeals

Authors have the right to submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision.

The editorial office:

  • considers the appeal;
  • may assign additional peer review if necessary;
  • makes a final decision.
  1. Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

  • relevance of the topic to the content;
  • topicality;
  • scientific novelty;
  • theoretical and practical significance;
  • depth and completeness of literature review;
  • methodological soundness;
  • logical structure and coherence;
  • consistency of conclusions with research objectives;
  • correctness of terminology;
  • validity and justification of conclusions;
  • compliance with formatting standards.
  1. Conflict of Interest

All participants in the publication process must disclose any conflicts of interest.

In case of identification:

  • the reviewer withdraws from the process;
  • a new reviewer is appointed;
  • an independent re-evaluation is ensured.
  1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential documents.

It is prohibited to:

  • share materials with third parties;
  • use research results without the author’s permission. 
  1. Academic Integrity

All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using specialized software (StrikePlagiarism).

Manuscripts are rejected in cases of:

  • plagiarism;
  • data falsification or fabrication;
  • duplicate publication;
  • other violations of academic integrity standards. 
  1. Transparency of the Editorial Process

The journal ensures transparency of key stages of manuscript processing:

  • date of submission;
  • date of decision;
  • date of publication.

Reviews are archived for at least 3 years. 

  1. Final Decision

The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers’ reports and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s editorial policy.

The final decision on the recommendation for publication of an issue of the scientific journal and its content are approved by the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council of the founders and are reflected on the title page of the published scientific journal. 

  1. Post-Acceptance Editing

The editorial board may make minor edits without the author's consent, if they do not affect the content, and therefore, after acceptance, the accepted manuscript undergoes:

  • scientific editing;
  • language editing;
  • technical preparation.

The editorial board of a scientific journal sends the final version of the scientific article with editorial and proofreading corrections to the author for approval.

  1. Authors’ Responsibility

Authors are responsible for:

  • the accuracy of data;
  • originality of the research;
  • compliance with copyright requirements;
  • the scientific quality of the publication.