PEER-REVIEW POLICY
Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) is published in accordance with COPE CORE PRACTICES by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and recommendation of the World Medical Association
The instruction for reviewers has been compiled in accordance with COPE CORE PRACTICES by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and recommendation of the World Medical Association
Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) encourages reviewers to refer to and follow COPE CORE PRACTICES, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and recommendation of the World Medical Association
We also encourage reviewers to study Instructions for Reviewers, Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics Policies.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests.
When submitting the manuscript to Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine), Authors can provide Editors with names of persons they feel shouldn’t be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflict of interests with an explanation of their concerns.
Reviewers are asked at the time they are asked to critique a manuscript for Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) if they have relationships or activities that could complicate their review. Editors avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest. Moreover, since single-blind peer review is used, the reviewers can see the author's details. So, they must disclose to editors any relationships or activities that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they're reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.
Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) avoids reviewers from the same institution as the authors, unless the institution is so large that authors and reviewers are not working colleagues.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have relationships or activities that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide Editors with a current description of their relationships and activities (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which an interest that poses a potential conflict exists.
Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) are privileged communications that are authors' private, confidential property. Editors therefore must not share information about manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
Reviewers should keep manuscripts, associated material, and the information they contain strictly confidential.
Reviewers must not publicly discuss the authors' work.
Reviewers must not appropriate authors' ideas before the manuscript is published.
Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy paper copies of manuscripts and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews.
Editors do not publish or publicize peer reviewers' comments without permission of the reviewer and author.
Violation of confidentiality is possible only if there is a claim of the unreliability or falsity of evidence, in all other cases, the confidentiality must not be violated.
How peer reviewers are selected
The choice of peer-reviewers is based on many factors including expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, reputation, and our own experience of collaboration with each reviewer. So, the previous performance of the reviewer, including quality and timeliness, is considered.
Editors make every effort to find expert reviewers in the topics(s) addressed in the manuscript who are free of significant conflicts of interest. These efforts include:
- the editors’ own expertise
- use of electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed)
- use of manuscript reference lists
- editorial board and reviewer recommendations
- journal database searches, and the like.
Authors can suggest potential reviewers for their articles; however, the decision is of the Editorial Board.
Editors avoid using only author-recommended peer reviewers to review a paper.
If the reviewer to whom the review invitation has been sent is unable to complete the review for any reason, including a conflict of interest or lack of time, the reviewer may suggest other qualified reviewers.
ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) identification numbers are a possible mechanism for helping to find reviewers, validate reviewer identity and contact information and to recognize and reward peer reviewers (Reviewer Credits).
Editors generally exclude from consideration:
- individuals who have coauthored manuscripts with the authors in the recent (e.g., 10 years) past,
- individuals who work at the same institution as the authors, particularly if they are in the same area as an author or the institution is small, and
- individuals who have other obvious conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, for or against the paper.
Responsibilities of reviewers
Peer reviewers are experts chosen by Editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine).
Peer reviewers are experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and are selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge.
Individuals who do not have such expertise and individuals who have a major competing interest in the subject of the article cannot be reviewers.
Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review are as follows:
- The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
- The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
- The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
- The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
- The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
- The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional.
- The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
