of Zaporizhzhya National University

REVIEW POLICY (Biological Sciences)

All articles submitted to the editorial board of the “Bulletin of the Zaporizhzhia National University: Biological Sciences” are subjected to mandatory one-side blind double review (external and internal reviews). The procedure of reviewing are aimed at ensuring the quality of published articles.

The reviewers involve members of the editorial board of the journal and external reviewers who have a Ph.D. or doctorate degree, sufficient experience of research in the relevant scientific field. In connection with the avoidance of a "conflict of interests" between authors and reviewers, the reviewer should not work in one organization with the author (s) of the article.

The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

Review of articles in the scientific publication "Bulletin of the Zaporizhzhia National University: Biological Sciences" is not paid. The editors do not public disclose information about the reviewer.

The time of the review should not exceed one month from the date the article was received by the reviewer.

In case of minor comments that require only editorial edits, and with the consent of the authors, a decision may be made to accept the article for publication.

The final decision on the possibility of publishing an article is taken by the editorial board, taking into account the received review (reviews), as well as the motivated response of the author(s) of the article.

If there is at least one negative review, the article is rejected, and a review is sent to the author.

All reviews are kept in writing in editors office for a period of five years.

Review content (review criteria)

I The title of the article.

II Contents of the article

  • Is the article corresponds to the speciality of the journal “Bulletin of the Zaporizhzhia National University: Biological Sciences”? (If not, then its further analysis is not required)
  • Are the data presented new and original?
  • Does the name of the article correspond to its content?
  • Are the materials and methods sufficiently informative and accurately described?
  • Are the arguments of the author(s) in the discussion and conclusions logical?
  • Does the author(s) meets with the rules of the International Code of Zoological / Botanical Nomenclature?
  • Does the text correspond to the literary norms of the language?
  • Is the abstract sufficiently adequate to the results?
  • Are the keywords of the article relevant to the content?
  • Does the author(s) use the volume of the article rationally?
  • Are the references to other papers sufficient and necessary?

III Article design.

  • Are tables and illustrations descriptive and informative?
  • Are taxonomic names, scientific and technical terms correctly written?
  • Are there acronyms understandable?

IV Recommendations

  • May be accepted in the presented form.
  • May be accepted with minor corrections.
  • It requires a lot of corrections.
  • Can be accepted as a brief note after editing and shortening.
  • Publication is not possible.

V Do you want to see the corrected article?

VІ Comments