Publication and Peer Review Policies
The editorial board of the journal “Scientia et Societus” accepts original articles on fundamental problems in the field of pedagogy.
Materials are submitted in Ukrainian or professional English (British variant). Translations from Internet sources are not accepted. Changes to the authorship are not allowed after submission.
Articles should be sent to mail@sets.com.ua or via the website.
A separate file with author details (full name, degree, position, institution, address, e-mail, ORCID – required) should be attached.
File names should correspond to the author's surname (Ivanchuk_Article).
Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements will not be considered.
The peer review process in "Scientia et Societus" ensures high scientific quality of publications and contributes to the careful selection of materials for publication. The main objective is to assess the compliance of articles with scientific, literary, and ethical standards.
Double-blind peer review:
To ensure maximum objectivity in the process, a double-blind peer review system is applied, where:
- reviewers do not have access to the personal information of the authors;
- authors do not know who reviews their works.
Initial evaluation:
The Editor-in-Chief or their deputy conducts the initial check of articles. If the editor has a personal interest in the publication (e.g., if they are an author or have family or professional ties with the authors), the evaluation is carried out by the deputy or another Editorial Board member to avoid conflict of interest.
Sending for review:
Anonymous articles are sent for review to:
- a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field;
- two external reviewers who are specialists in the article's field.
Review process:
During the review, experts evaluate the following aspects:
- relevance of the content to the declared topic;
- timeliness of the scientific issue;
- practical significance of the research;
- the article's potential to engage a wide audience.
Reviewer recommendations:
Reviewers select one of the following recommendations:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
- recommend the article for publication after major revisions;
- do not recommend the article for publication.
Revised review:
Articles requiring revisions are sent to the authors along with the review text, excluding reviewer identification. After making the changes, the article is returned for a second round of review, which may involve additional revisions.
Final editorial decision:
The decision regarding the publication of the article is made at an Editorial Board meeting, taking into account the reviews, plagiarism check results, and any additional revisions. If the article is accepted for publication, the relevant issue of the journal is prepared.
Editorial management:
The Editor-in-Chief reviews all received reviews and makes the final decision based on the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's requirements. In cases of personal interest, the editor does not participate in the review of materials authored by themselves or their family members, or in materials in which they have a conflict of interest. Such articles undergo independent review, and the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Review time:
The typical time for expert evaluation is 2 to 4 weeks.
The average time to the first decision is 4 to 8 weeks.