Problems of the modern textbook

Peer review policy

Peer Review Policy

The scientific journal Problems of the Modern Textbook is a professional periodical published by the Institute of Pedagogy of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine.

All manuscripts submitted for publication, including those authored by editorial board members and the chief editor, undergo a double-blind peer review process. The responsible editor does not have the right to publish in the journal and ensures that all requirements for objective review of the submitted materials are followed.

The goal of peer review is to ensure high-quality scientific articles through an independent evaluation of their content and adherence to scientific standards, both at the national and international levels. This process helps to enhance the journal's reputation among researchers.

The review process includes a thorough analysis of the article, evaluation of its content, structure, and writing style, as well as verification of its compliance with the requirements of the scientific journal. Only those articles that have scientific value and contribute to solving current issues in pedagogy are accepted for publication.

Peer review is conducted by two independent experts who provide their written feedback. The process is anonymous for both reviewers and authors. Reviewers are warned that the submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and are confidential. Copying or using the content of the articles before publication is prohibited. All information about the article, including submission dates, content, review stages, reviewers' comments, and publication decisions, is confidential and not disclosed to third parties, except in cases where there are concerns about falsification or inaccuracy of the materials. Upon agreement by both authors and reviewers, reviewers' comments may be published along with the article.

Authors have the opportunity to analyze the text of the review, especially if they disagree with the reviewer's conclusions.

Editorial Responsibilities

The chief editor, responsible editor, and editorial board are responsible for making decisions regarding the publication of articles submitted to the journal. They act in accordance with the editorial policy and with consideration of the applicable legal requirements concerning copyright and plagiarism.

The chief editor, responsible editor, and editorial board have the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet the content and formal requirements set forth in the Author Guidelines. The editorial team is obligated to inform authors of the decision regarding their manuscript within one month of its submission.

Editors must avoid conflicts of interest regarding the articles under review. If the editor has doubts about a potential conflict of interest, they must transfer the selection of reviewers and decision-making about the manuscript to another editor.

Editors and the editorial board evaluate manuscripts solely from a scientific perspective, avoiding racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political biases. They are prohibited from using unpublished data from submitted manuscripts without written consent from the authors. All information and ideas contained in submitted materials must remain confidential and not be used for personal gain.

Since manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, editors and the editorial team must take all necessary steps to ensure the anonymity of reviewers with respect to authors before, during, and after the evaluation, as well as preserve the anonymity of authors to reviewers until the review process is complete.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers are specialists in the relevant field, appointed based on their consent and absence of conflicts of interest, to assess the quality of materials submitted to the journal. They provide recommendations to improve the clarity and readability of the articles. Reviewers are obligated to maintain confidentiality throughout the review and publication process and to avoid using ideas and materials they are reviewing for their own benefit. When evaluating manuscripts, reviewers should follow the relevant standards of the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org).

The main duties of reviewers include:

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest regarding the research, authors, or funding sources. If such conflicts exist, they must promptly inform the editor. If a reviewer feels they lack sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript or cannot complete the review on time, they are obligated to inform the editor immediately.

Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors confirm that their manuscript is an original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere. The simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another journal is considered an ethical violation and may lead to its exclusion from consideration. Please note that posting preprints on servers or repositories is not considered prior publication. Authors must provide details of the preprint posting when submitting their manuscript, including a link to it. If the manuscript is published, authors must update the preprint information on the server/repository, indicating that the final version has been published in the journal, along with the DOI linking to the publication.

If the manuscript was previously submitted to another journal, authors should provide information about the prior review process and its outcome. This helps authors explain how they have addressed previous reviews and justify why certain comments were not considered. Information about prior reviews can assist editors in selecting reviewers.

If the manuscript is the result of a research project or if an earlier version was presented at a conference as an oral report (under the same or a similar title), authors must provide details of the project, conference, etc., in a note.

Each author is personally responsible for adhering to ethical standards when writing manuscripts for the journal. The journal follows the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org). Authors confirm that the manuscript does not contain unsupported or unlawful claims and does not violate the rights of third parties. The publisher is not liable for any claims for compensation that may arise.

Conflict of Interest

Authors are required to disclose any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

All reviewers and editors involved in the peer review process must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Publications in the journal cannot contain material promoting commercial products.

Manuscript Review Procedure

  1. The author submits an article to the editorial board, which must meet the requirements of the Problems of the Modern Textbook journal and general guidelines for preparing scientific papers for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are not registered or reviewed, and authors are notified accordingly.
  2. After submission, the responsible secretary conducts an initial evaluation to check for the presence of all structural elements (abstract, information about the author, manuscript volume) and forwards it to two reviewers, appointed by the Chief Editor. In certain cases, the selection of reviewers may be delegated to a member of the editorial board or discussed at a board meeting. Articles by prominent scientists or special invitations may be exempt from the standard review procedure.
  3. Reviewers, typically experts in the field (usually PhDs or professors), confirm their absence of conflicts of interest and agree to review the manuscript after reviewing the title and abstract.
  4. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript within 14 days. The review period may vary depending on the conditions needed for an objective evaluation of the materials. In case of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must refuse to review and inform the editorial team, who will assign a new reviewer.
  5. The reviewer formulates a conclusion regarding the possibility of publication or the need for revision before publication in the next issue. The review process follows the double-blind principles, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Communication between authors and reviewers is carried out through the responsible secretary. Upon agreement, the reviewer may open a communication format to help improve the manuscript.
  6. All articles are checked for plagiarism. The reviewer completes a standardized form with recommendations for improving the article. Review results are communicated to the author via email.
  7. If the reviewer suggests revisions, the article is returned to the author for amendments or reasoned rejection of the comments. After revision, the author submits the updated manuscript along with explanations of the changes, which is then re-reviewed. The acceptance date of the article is the date of receiving a positive review.
  8. In case of disagreements with the reviewer's opinion, the author may submit a reasoned response, and the article will be discussed at an editorial board meeting. The editorial board may reject articles if the author does not address the reviewer’s comments.
  9. The Chief Editor (or a board member acting on their behalf) makes the final decision regarding publication. After a positive decision, the responsible secretary notifies the author of the expected publication date.
  10. The accepted article is included in the contents of the next issue. The final contents are approved by the Scientific Council of the Institute of Pedagogy.
  11. Accepted articles are forwarded to the literary editor. The literary editor makes minor corrections without consulting the author, and if necessary or upon request, the article draft can be returned for approval.
  12. The review process takes no more than one month. Responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the validity of the conclusions lies with the author and the reviewer.

Communication with Authors: Corrections and Rejections

All communication between authors and the journal's editorial team takes place in strict confidentiality and with mutual respect. The editorial team strives to ensure an open and constructive dialogue with authors to maintain high-quality standards for scientific publications. Review results, along with suggestions for manuscript revisions, are sent to the author via email. If the author has questions or disagrees with the reviewer's conclusions, they have the right to contact the journal editor. The editor is open to discussing emerging issues to find the best resolution.

If the manuscript is rejected due to serious violations or shortcomings, the author receives a detailed email clearly stating the reasons for the rejection. This allows the author to understand which aspects of the manuscript need improvement for future submissions.

Once the specified issues are addressed, the author may resubmit the manuscript for review.

If a published article contains a significant error or inaccuracy, the author is obliged to promptly inform the editorial team. In this case, the author must cooperate with the editorial team to arrange for the retraction or correction of the article. This is essential for maintaining scientific integrity and ensuring the accuracy of scientific information.

The journal's editorial team values feedback from authors and strives for continuous improvement of the peer review and publication processes. Interaction at all stages is a key component of successful collaboration between authors and the editorial team, contributing to the enhancement of scientific publication quality.

Article Retraction Procedure

Retraction of an article is a serious action taken in cases of violations of professional ethical standards and scientific integrity. Such violations may include multiple submissions, duplicate or cross publications, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent data use, and data falsification. In addition, improper use of tools based on large language models and generative AI, as well as errors reported in good faith by authors (e.g., due to sample mix-ups or faulty scientific instruments), may also lead to retraction. Unethical research and other serious violations also require appropriate action.

The article retraction process involves clear documentation of the reasons for the decision, as well as identification of the individual initiating the retraction. The retraction notice specifies the reason for the retraction, ensuring transparency in the process.

In the electronic version, the retraction notice will include a link to the original article. Conversely, the electronic version of the original article will include a link to the retraction notice, indicating that the article has been retracted.

The original text of the article will remain unchanged, except that a watermark will be placed on each page of the PDF document, marking the article as "retracted." This will help prevent further use of the retracted article and ensure its recognition as one that does not meet scientific standards.