Peer Review (Expert Evaluation) of manuscripts is conducted to ensure the high scientific and theoretical quality of the journal «Obraz» and involves a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted article.
The purpose is to uphold academic publishing standards and prevent cases of research misconduct; to provide aid and recommendations to authors for improving their manuscripts; and to facilitate high-quality evaluation and careful selection of submissions for publication.
Only those articles that are scientifically valuable, contribute to solving relevant educational and research problems, and address key issues in the field of social communications are accepted for publication.
The editorial board adheres to international standards of transparency in the peer review process and follows the procedure of independent double-blind peer review:
- reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
- authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
All reviewers must be objective and comply with the provisions of the Publication Ethics section. The peer review process consists of several stages:
- Submission
The corresponding author (the contact person among co-authors) submits the manuscript via email to obraz@journ.sumdu.edu.ua or through the electronic submission system (mandatory duplicate submission via email).
- Initial Screening
Submitted materials undergo an initial assessment for compliance with the journal’s scope and requirements specified in the Guidelines for Authors, as well as plagiarism detection and originality check using StrikePlagiarism software.
The initial evaluation is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor, or Executive Secretary. In cases of conflict of interest (e.g., authorship, co-authorship, or personal/professional relationships with authors), the evaluation is performed by another editorial board member without such conflict.
- Preparation for Review
Only manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to peer review. If a manuscript fails to meet any requirement, it is returned to the author for revision with the note “does not meet requirements” without detailed explanation.
If approved, the manuscript is assigned a registration code and all identifying author information is removed.
- Selection of Reviewers
External peer review involves leading scholars from Ukraine, international experts, and recognized practitioners with relevant research expertise, active publication records in Scopus/WoS-indexed journals, and strong scientometric indicators.
Reviewers must adhere to publication ethics and academic integrity and provide qualified, independent, and unbiased evaluations. They must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author or have any conflict of interest.
- Appointment of Reviewers
The Executive Secretary selects reviewers based on their expertise and publication profile. Each reviewer receives an invitation.
An anonymized version of the manuscript is sent to two independent external reviewers and a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant research field.
If a reviewer feels unqualified or unable to complete the review on time, they must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief, and another reviewer will be appointed.
- Review Process
Reviewers assess:
- relevance and scientific novelty;
- consistency between title and content;
- quality of the literature review;
- methodological rigor;
- validity of results;
- soundness of conclusions;
- formatting and language quality.
After evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:
a) accept without changes;
b) accept with minor revisions;
c) major revisions required (resubmit for review);
d) reject (resubmission possible after substantial revision);
e) reject without further consideration (revisions unsatisfactory);
f) reject (fundamental flaws; resubmission not allowed);
g) reject (out of scope).
If rejection or revision is recommended, reviewers must provide a reasoned written explanation.
If both reviews are negative, the manuscript is rejected without disclosure of full review content due to legal considerations.
If reviews differ, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint an additional reviewer or refer the case to the editorial board.
Signed reviews (including electronic signatures) are stored for three years after publication.
- Author Revision
Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments and prepare a point-by-point response. The revised manuscript is resubmitted and may undergo additional review.
Revisions do not guarantee acceptance. If changes are deemed insufficient or introduce new unreviewed content, the manuscript may be rejected.
- Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewers’ recommendations.
The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding their own manuscripts or those of family members or colleagues. In such cases, the decision is made by the Deputy Editor or an independent editorial board member.
Acceptance rate: 68%
- Timeline
- Initial screening: 1–2 weeks
- Peer review: 2–4 weeks
- First decision: 4–8 weeks
- Revision period: 10–14 days
- Final decision: 10–14 days
- Appeal
Authors may appeal a rejection within 10 days by submitting a reasoned written complaint via email. The appeal must include clear arguments, additional evidence, or explanations.
The appeal is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or editorial board. The manuscript may be sent for re-review or the rejection may be upheld as final. Authors will receive a response after careful consideration.
Reviewer Ethics
Reviewers must ensure:
- professional, objective, and standardized reviews within the specified timeframe; comments must be constructive, non-personal, and evidence-based;
- confidentiality of all information obtained during the review process;
- absence of conflicts of interest;
- prompt notification of any ethical concerns or misconduct;
- timely completion of reviews.
Reviewers may recommend improvements or suggest relevant sources related to the manuscript under review.
Dear Reviewer!
Please note that submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and contain confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to copy manuscripts or use their content prior to publication. Reviewers are not permitted to use AI tools or AI-based systems for reviewing manuscripts or generating review reports. They bear full responsibility for the content of their reviews, and the use of AI is considered a breach of confidentiality.
Please use the official review form for evaluation.