Regulations for reviewing process
The publisher adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency. We guarantee fairness in the assessment of each article and ensure the confidentiality of the review process.
The process of reviewing incoming articles
The ''Professional Bulletin'' publishing house uses a double-blind review system, which ensures objectivity and independence in the evaluation of each article.
Stages of review:
-
Preliminary check
After the article is submitted, it is checked for compliance with the formal requirements of the journal, such as structure, formatting, originality of the text and compliance with the subject of the publication. At this stage, a plagiarism check is carried out using specialized programs. -
Assignment of reviewers
If the initial review is successful, the editorial board appoints two independent reviewers whose expertise and field of knowledge correspond to the topic of the article. In the double-blind review process, the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. -
Article Rating
Reviewers analyze the content of the article, assessing its originality, scientific novelty, validity of the conclusions, and compliance with ethical standards. Particular attention is paid to the research methodology, correctness of data processing, and the quality of the presented conclusions. -
Reviews and recommendations
Reviewers provide detailed reports on the article, including both critical comments and suggestions for improvement. The reviewer has the right to: accept the article without changes, accept with minor revisions, send for significant revisions, reject the article). -
The final decision
The editorial board makes a decision on the publication of an article based on reviews. If the reviews contain contradictory conclusions, the editors may appoint an additional review or conduct an internal discussion of the article. Authors receive feedback from reviewers, as well as recommendations for revision (if necessary). -
Refinement
If revision is necessary, the authors are obliged to make corrections to the manuscript and submit it for reconsideration. The editors conduct a final check of the article after all revisions and only then make a decision on publication.
Appeal and review of decisions
The publisher strives for objectivity and fairness in the review process. Authors have the right to appeal the editorial decision if they disagree with the reviewer's conclusions.
The appeal procedure includes the following steps:
-
Filing an appeal
In writing to the editorial board within 10 days of receiving the reviewers' decision. The letter must detail the reasons for disagreement with the decision. -
Appeal review and further review
The appeal is considered by the editorial board. Depending on the nature of the appeal and its arguments, the editors may appoint an additional review of the article by independent experts who have not previously participated in the review process. The re-evaluation process will also be carried out on the principle of double-blind review. -
The final decision
Following the second review or discussion by the editorial board, a final decision is made. This decision is final and cannot be further appealed. Authors will be notified of the outcome of the appeal and will receive updated comments and recommendations.
The ''Professional Belletin'' ensures that all appeals are considered impartially.
Publish your article with us!
Editorial board of the journal (permanent)
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
The publishing house adheres to strict standards of objectivity and transparency.
In addition to internal reviewers, the publisher uses the services of external reviewers who have sufficient knowledge to evaluate other people's scientific works.
Criteria for selecting reviewers
The professionalism and objectivity of reviewers are intended to ensure the quality of scientific publications. When selecting reviewers, the editors are guided by the following criteria:
-
Expertise in the relevant field
Reviewers should have deep knowledge and significant experience in the field of science that the article is devoted to. This is confirmed by the presence of their own scientific publications and citations of works, recognition as a specialist in their field (in any form) and other professional achievements. -
Objectivity and independence
Reviewers are required to have no conflict of interest with the authors of the articles they review. This ensures the objectivity of the assessment. In the event of a possible conflict of interest being identified, the reviewer is required to notify the editors of this. -
Peer review experience
Preference is given to specialists with experience in reviewing in other scientific publications, which confirms their competence. -
Ability to provide constructive feedback
Reviewers should be able to write detailed and objective reviews, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of a paper and providing authors with recommendations for improving the article. -
Ethics and confidentiality
Reviewers are required to strictly adhere to ethical standards, including guaranteeing the confidentiality of the information received. The use of the article materials for personal gain before its publication is strictly prohibited. -
Meeting deadlines
Reviewers must be able to complete their work within the established deadlines to ensure the efficiency of the review process and minimise delays in publication.
How to join the list of reviewers
To join the circle of reviewers, you must complete the following steps:
-
Submit request
Potential reviewers should send an application to the editorial e-mail address indicated on the journal's website. The application must include:
- Full name and contact information.
- Academic degree and scientific qualification.
- The main area of scientific interests.
- List of publications and reviewing experience.
- Evidence of experience and achievements in the field of scientific interests – it is possible to provide a list of professional achievements, such as participation as a jury on professional panels, evaluation of student work at the university as an invited expert, and other evidence of qualifications. -
Wait for the application to be reviewed by the editors
The editors evaluate the applicant's compliance with the reviewer selection criteria. This process may take some time, as the editors strive to attract only the best professionals to work. -
Get the editorial decision
If the application is successfully reviewed, the future reviewer receives confirmation from the editors and is entered into the journal database. He will be involved in reviewing articles that correspond to his scientific specialization. -
Familiarize yourself with the responsibilities of a reviewer (review rules)
All new reviewers must familiarize themselves with the reviewer rules and responsibilities posted on the site and confirm their willingness to follow the established rules and standards.
If at any point in time a reviewer realizes that he/she cannot meet the requirements of objectivity and honesty, or simply no longer wishes to receive materials for analysis, we ask reviewers to immediately notify of their decision by e-mail: support@professionalbulletinpublisher.com