The peer review process, publication ethics, and editorial policy of the journal adhere to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics / COPE, (http://www.publicationethics.org). The process is aimed at ensuring an objective evaluation of the content of scientific articles, assessing their compliance with the journal’s requirements, and providing a comprehensive analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo a “double-blind”peer review process. The journal follows a “double-blind” peer review process, in which the evaluation is conducted anonymously for both the reviewer and the authors.

The author submits the article to the editorial board of the journal at  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . The manuscript must comply with the requirements for articles published in the journal Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraineand with the general rules for preparing scholarly works for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the established requirements are not accepted for further consideration, and the authors are notified accordingly by email.

Manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are evaluated for their relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with formal requirements using the Plag.com.ua and  Plagiarisma to determine the degree of originality of the author’s text (80% or higher), and, following a positive evaluation, selects reviewers from among the editorial board members who have research experience relevant to the article’s field. If necessary, external experts with publications in the relevant subject areas may be invited to participate in the review process.

Criteria for selecting reviewers:

- Possession of an advanced degree (Doctor of Science, PhD) in the relevant field.

- No conflict of interest with the author (not co-authors or colleagues at the same institution).

- Expertise in the subject matter of the article (members of the editorial board or external experts).

The review process is anonymous (double-blind): reviewers analyzing the article do not know the author’s name, and the author does not know the reviewers’ names. Communication between the author and the reviewers is carried out via the Executive Secretary by email correspondence. The review process may take up to 30 days.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest refers to any situation that hinders or could hinder a full, proper, and objective review and decision-making process regarding the publication of research articles or other materials. A conflict of interest is deemed to exist if individuals involved in the editorial process have personal or other relationships with one another that could potentially compromise them, hinder objectivity, or influence decisions related to publication. During the editorial process, a conflict of interest includes the following relationships between the editor-in-chief and/or scientific editors, reviewers, and authors: the author and the scientific editor and/or reviewer work in the same department or research group. When submitting an article, the author must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the journal’s editors. Once manuscripts are assigned for review, reviewers are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may arise. The author designated by the co-authors as responsible for correspondence with the editorial board (corresponding author) must declare any conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors.

Conflicts of interest may also relate to employment, funding sources, personal financial interests, membership in relevant organizations, or other circumstances that could cause bias and influence the decision-making of those responsible.

Authors must inform the journal’s editorial board of any conflicts of interest they may have with members of the journal’s editorial board.

Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.

Editors must not edit or oversee manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or with companies or institutions associated with the research.

Any declarations of conflicts of interest made by authors, reviewers, or editors are reviewed by the journal’s editor-in-chief. In the event of substantiated claims of a conflict of interest with the editor-in-chief, such claims are reviewed with the participation of two members of the journal’s editorial board. 

Publication Policy of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members

The publication policy of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members is based on the principles of transparency, fairness, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. Their manuscripts undergo the standard double-blind peer review process, and the authors themselves are excluded from decision-making regarding their own articles. The editorial board may recommend limiting the number of publications by editorial board members to avoid their overrepresentation.

Key provisions of the policy:

-  Independent review: Manuscripts by editors are reviewed on an equal basis without any advantages or privileges.

-  Avoidance of conflicts of interest: The editor-in-chief or a member of the editorial board who is the author of an article does not participate in the discussion or voting on that material.

-  Editor assignment: For manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, another editorial board member who has no conflict of interest is assigned.

-  Ethical standards: Compliance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to ensure objectivity.

-  Limits on representation: Monitoring the number of articles from editorial board members to avoid a single author dominating an issue. 

The editorial board guarantees that rejected materials may under no circumstances be used in the personal research of the editor-in-chief or any member of the editorial board.

The editorial board undertakes to resolve any conflict of interest that may arise due to family or financial ties, employer-employee relationships, or a biased, subjective attitude of a member of the editorial board or a reviewer toward the author, and vice versa. 

Reviewers evaluate the article based on the following criteria:

-   relevance of the title to the content of the article;

-   adequacy of the substantiation of the article’s relevance;

-   completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the stated problem;

-   consistency between the purpose of the article, its title, and the presentation of the main material;

-   logical substantiation of the obtained scientific results;

-   scientific novelty of the article and its contribution to the relevant field;

-   consistency of the conclusions with the stated purpose;

-   terminological clarity and consistency;

-   proper formatting of illustrative materials;

-   absence of the need for substantial scientific or literary editing;

-   presence of references to cited sources;

-   formatting of the list of references and the References section in accordance with the journal’s requirements.

        Reviewers prepare a recommendation regarding the possibility of publication using one of the following formulations:

-     publish without changes;

-     publish subject to minor revisions by the author;

-     publish after major revisions by the author;

-     reject the article.

Reviews are signed by reviewers with a handwritten or electronic signature. They are retained by the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.

The Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board sends the review results to the author via email. If the article requires revision, the author must return the revised version to the editorial office no later than 10 days after receipt. Submission of the revised version at a later date changes the official date of receipt and review of the manuscript.

The revised version of the article is sent to the reviewers again for a final decision on its publication. The date of acceptance for publication is considered to be the date on which the editorial office receives positive review reports recommending publication.

The decision to reject a manuscript is final and cannot be appealed; the editorial board will not engage in further correspondence on this matter.

After the decision to accept the article for publication is made, the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board informs the author and indicates the expected publication date.

After the editorial board receives a positive review regarding the suitability of the article for publication and a decision to approve it based on that review from the chair of the editorial board and the editor-in-chief, the executive secretary includes it in the table of contents for that issue of the journal. The Scientific and Methodological Council of the National School of Judges of Ukraine recommends the next issue of the journal for publication.

Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo technical and editorial review. The journal’s scientific editor may make minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article without the author’s consent. 

REVIEW

Timelines

-  Verification of the manuscript’s compliance with formal requirements and notification of the author regarding the submission of the article for review – up to 10 business days.

-  Total time from submission to final decision – up to 8 weeks.

-  Time for revisions – up to 10 days.

-  Time for re-review – up to 10 days.