PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
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.
All manuscripts sent to the editorial office of Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) are peer-reviewed.
The Journal uses a single-blind type of peer-review when the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.
All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) that are selected for peer review are sent to two or more independent reviewers, selected by the Editors.
Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final. Moreover, the reviewer's identity is kept anonymous from the authors as a single-blind peer review is used.
Manuscripts are submitted to Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine) via the Online Manuscript Submission and Peer-Review System (OJS) and are only considered for peer-review if they conform to all requirements of authors for publishing in Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine).
Step 1: Initial assessment
Secretary Editor estimates the article due to content conformity to the journal and if the paper covers a suitable topic according to the journal aims and scope.
It is also checked if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines in the instructions for authors and if it meets the basic requirements of the journal, such as word count, language clarity, and format.
It is checked that everything that’s needed for peer review is included (an abstract, author information and disclosures, any figures, and any other information).
Secretary Editor estimates if the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the existing literature. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
Decision can be made to reject the manuscript or to send it to reviewers.
Step 2: First round of peer review.
The Secretary Editor selects two or more reviewers who are experts in the field and have no obvious conflict of interest, and send the request to review the paper.
Secretary Editor sends each manuscript to at least one external reviewer.
Only external reviewers can be engaged in cases as follows: absence of the Editorial Board member in a certain field; an Editorial Board member cannot prepare a review; the article is sent by an Editorial Board member.
Selected reviewers are provided with the manuscript abstract and requested to accept or decline the invitation to review within 3 days of the request.
If a reviewer cannot complete the review for any reason, including a conflict of interest, or lack of time, the reviewer informs Editorial Secretary within 3 days and if possible suggests alternative reviewers.
Since single-blind peer review is used, the reviewers can see the author's details. So, they must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript.
The full paper is accessible after the reviewer accepts the invitation.
Reviewers must assess the article and send the review report or motivated refuse in the journal system within two weeks.
Reviewers provide the written reports with the conclusion about the advisability of publication given at the end of the report. In their reports, reviewers should list exact examples which require the correction, indicating the number of row in the report text.
If reviewers suspect research or publication misconduct, they should reflect it in the report, indicating which exactly concerns have arisen.
The reviewer recommends the article for publication; recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account the comments (minor changes); recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account the comments (major changes); or does not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article to be published after revision due to notes or does not recommend the article to be published, the report must include the reasons for this decision.
Decision can be made to accept, to accept after revision or to reject the manuscript.
Step 3: Revise and resubmit.
Secretary Editor receives and considers the reviewer reports, as well as makes their own assessment of the paper.
Then Secretary Editor informs the author of the decision and sent the manuscript to the authors for revision.
The reviewer reports are sent to the authors along with any additional comments from Secretary Editor.
Suggestions are generally about how authors can improve the paper before it is ready to be published and can require minor or major revision.
Authors have time to amend the article based on the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it with any or all changes made.
The correction should be made and highlighted within the text of the manuscript. In addition, the authors should provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers explaining which corrections have been made and explain and prove which correction have not been made.
If the authors don’t agree with a reviewer’s point of view, they can give a reasonable answer.
A revised copy and a point-to-point response are resubmitted on the submission file in the journal system (there is no need to create a new submission).
Articles sent to authors for revision must be returned to the editorial board no later than in a month. If the article is not being returned for a long time, it can be rejected but resubmitted as a new manuscript later.
Step 4: Second round of peer review.
Once a revised copy is submitted, Secretary Editor assesses the revisions and sends the manuscript for the second round of peer review, asking the reviewers to assess how the authors responded to their comments.
Then, the authors may be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor and reviewers thinks that the changes made are not adequate.
The article also can be sent for additional review or coordination to the Editorial Board. In reasonable cases, articles can be sent for additional and anonymous review.
There can be more rounds of peer review if necessary.
Decision can be made to accept, to accept after revision or to reject the manuscript.
Step 4: Final Decision (Accept/Reject Submission)
The Secretary Editor analyzes the revised manuscript according to the review reports and presents them for final decision.
All manuscripts are discussed at the Editorial Board meeting and the final decision on their publishing or not publishing is accepted.
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Secretary Editor includes comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article.
The Secretary Editor informs the author about the decision, sending e-mails to authors (in the journal system). The letter includes a general assessment of the article, a decision to accept the manuscript and send it to production or to reject it with the reasons for rejection.
If the author believes the decision to reject the submission was due to a misunderstanding or was not in accordance with journal policy and procedures, the author may appeal the decision by sending the editor a comprehensive detailed response to the issues raised in the rejection letter.
The Editor-in-chief and Editors will consider the appeal and will review the peer review process undertaken for the submission. If the decision was made in line with editorial criteria, the Editor’s decision to reject is final.
Reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know what decision has been made.
