Scientific and Technical Bulletin
of the Institute of Oilseed Crops NAAS

Peer Review Policy

 Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is conducted to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the publication. The purpose of peer review is to facilitate careful selection of author manuscripts for publication, provide an objective assessment of the quality of submitted material, as well as determine the extent of its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the section Academic Integrity and Publication Ethics Policy.
 Initial expert evaluation of the scientific article (Stage I) is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in publication (is the author or co-author of the article, or has family or professional relations with the authors), the evaluation is conducted by their deputy or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. Submitted materials must correspond to the journal’s scope. If the article meets the journal’s scope, it is transferred to the technical editor, who performs plagiarism checking and verifies compliance with the requirements (Stage II) specified in the section Manuscript Formatting Requirements and Submission Procedure.
After successful completion of Stage II, the technical editor removes author information from the article and assigns it a registration number.
 At Stage III, the anonymous article is sent via email to:
 - a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
 - two external reviewers.
 The journal follows a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:
 - reviewers do not know the authors’ identities;
 - authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
 External peer review involves Ukrainian and international researchers specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial office, such a scholar is invited to review. The email includes the anonymous article and a standard review form. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and must not have any conflict of interest.
 During the peer review process, reviewers address the issues specified in the review form (provided below)
 After expert evaluation, reviewers may:
 - recommend acceptance in the current form;
 - recommend acceptance after consideration of reviewer comments;
 - recommend acceptance after major revision and re-review;
 - not recommend the manuscript for publication.
 If the recommendation is rejection or revision, reviewers must provide a written, reasoned explanation for their decision. Reviews signed by reviewers (handwritten or electronic signature) are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the publication date of the issue containing the reviewed article.
 The editorial board’s decision is communicated to the authors. Articles requiring revision are sent together with the review text without disclosing reviewer identities. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review, during which reviewers may request additional corrections. Revision does not guarantee acceptance, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
 The editorial board, during its meeting, analyzes the reviewers’ reports and makes a decision regarding publication, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal’s requirements. A member of the editorial board does not participate in decision-making regarding manuscripts in which they are the author, co-author, or have personal or professional interest.
 The decision of the editorial board regarding publication of the issue of the Scientific and Technical Bulletin is approved at the meeting of the Scientific Council of the Institute of Oilseed Crops of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine. The protocol number and date of the Scientific Council meeting approving the issue are indicated on the title page of each journal issue. This practice is part of the official editorial procedure and does not affect the integrity or independence of the peer review process: peer review is conducted independently and prior to the Scientific Council’s approval, which serves only as a formal confirmation of publication.
 The typical peer review period is 2–4 weeks.
 The average time to first decision is 4–8 weeks.

Review Form

Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 WorldWide