Ethical Principles for Reviewers

Expert evaluation (review) of a manuscript is an integral and important component of the editorial and publishing process. It aims to determine the quality, originality, reliability, and scientific value of the material. Reviewing is also intended to provide the author with objective recommendations from a reviewer who is an expert in the relevant field to improve the manuscript, as well as to substantiate conclusions and recommendations regarding its publication.

To provide the most objective assessment of a scientific article and to determine its compliance with publication ethics, editorial policy, and the requirements of the Eastern Ukrainian Medical Journal, each article undergoes independent double-blind peer review.

To perform expert evaluation and review of the manuscripts, the Eastern Ukrainian Medical Journal invites experienced scientists and practicing specialists, who are experts in the relevant narrow field of medical sciences, conduct research on the respective topic, have articles recently published in Scopus/WoS issues, high scientometric indicators, adhere to the principles of publication ethics and academic integrity, and can perform a qualified, independent, and impartial scientific examination of the manuscript submitted for consideration. 

All submitted scientific manuscripts undergo editorial selection and double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers in accordance with COPE recommendations and the procedure approved by the editorial board.

The editorial board considers review as the most important link in ensuring the exchange of scientific information and sets ethical requirements for reviewers regarding confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, clarity, and reasoning in expressing their opinion, in particular:

  • the reviewer must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript;
  • the reviewer must review the submitted materials independently, objectively, and confidentially; personal criticism and insults of the author are unacceptable;
  • the reviewer must assess impartially, comprehensively, and thoroughly the quality of the article and the degree of its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards, based on objective data;
  • all critical remarks and comments of the reviewer must be constructive and limited to scientific debate;
  • the reviewer must provide his/her conclusions and recommendations regarding the reviewed article by filling out a special expert evaluation form (Review Form);
  • reviewers are not allowed to use artificial intelligence-based tools and technologies, including ChatGPT, to review materials or create review reports without prior permission from the editorial board, in accordance with ICMJE recommendations on the use of AI by reviewers;
  • reviewers who have received prior permission from the editorial office to use artificial intelligence technologies must indicate this in the report, specifying which tools were used and at what stage, and ensure the relevance and authenticity of content, as artificial intelligence can generate results that may be incorrect, incomplete or biased;
  • reviewers are responsible for the content of their reports; the use of artificial intelligence technologies without the permission of the editorial office, without disclosing such use, or with a breach of confidentiality may be considered a violation of review ethics;
  • all comments and recommendations of the reviewer must be presented in clear, business-like, and professional language; if necessary, the reviewer may recommend making changes or additions to the publication or indicate sources/bibliography relevant to the reviewed article;
  • all comments and recommendations of the reviewer must be impartial; the content of the review must not be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious or political aspects, or commercial considerations;
  • the reviewer must immediately notify the editorial office of any suspicions of unethical practices performed by the author, in particular, due to the detection of text borrowings without proper references, unjustified citations, etc.; the reviewer must provide facts confirming the suspicions; the editorial office will conduct an investigation and make a decision in accordance with its policy and COPE recommendations;
  • manuscripts received by the reviewer should be treated as confidential documents; they may not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes, shown to third parties, or discussed with anyone unless the journal's editorial board has given its consent.

A reviewer must decline reviewing if:

  • the reviewer’s qualifications and specialty do not correspond to the topic of the article;
  • the reviewer has a real or potential conflict of interest that may affect the evaluation of the article;
  • the reviewer will not manage to analyze the article objectively and qualitatively within the specified time frame. The time frames are: respond to the invitation within 10 working days; conduct an expert evaluation and provide a review within 20-25 working days (if justified, the period may be extended).

The journal does not apply financial incentives for peer review, adhering to international standards of publication ethics and independence of peer review.