The peer review (expert evaluation) process for manuscripts is carried out to ensure the high academic and theoretical standard of the journal Research and Educational Studies. The main purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of authors’ materials for publication, to provide an objective and impartial assessment of the quality of the submitted research papers, and to determine the extent to which they comply with the scientific, literary and ethical standards of the academic community. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

1. The journal Research and Educational Studies adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) review process:

- reviewers do not know the authors’ personal details;
- authors do not know the reviewer’s personal details.

2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are first checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the ‘Publication Requirements’ section. Only those materials that are formatted in accordance with the provisions of the General Requirements section, and have successfully passed the initial editorial check and copyright compliance check, are admitted to the review process.

3. The initial expert assessment of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their deputy. In the event of a conflict of interest, in particular if the Editor-in-Chief is the author or co-author of the submitted work or has family or professional ties with the authors, the review is entrusted to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial board who has no personal interest in the publication.

Submitted materials must correspond to the journal’s thematic focus. Provided that the established requirements for the formatting and content of the article are met, it is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns it a registration code and removes information about the author or authors to ensure the anonymity of the subsequent peer review.

4. The anonymised manuscript is sent by email to:

- a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant scientific field of the article;
- two independent external experts (reviewers).

Ukrainian and foreign scholars holding a PhD and specialising in the relevant field of research are involved in the external review process. On behalf of the editorial board, an invitation letter is sent to such specialists requesting that they review the submitted work. The letter is accompanied by the anonymised text of the article and a standard review form.

Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors of the article, nor may they have a potential conflict of interest.

5. When reviewing scientific articles, experts evaluate the manuscript according to a number of criteria, including:

- the relevance of the article’s content to the topic stated in its title;
- the topicality and scientific novelty of the problem addressed in the research;
- the level of justification for the practical significance of the results obtained;
- the scientific value of the material for a wide readership.

6. Reviewers complete standard review forms, in which they select one of the possible recommendations:

- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
- recommend the article for publication after substantial revisions;
- do not recommend the article for publication.

If reviewers propose rejecting the article or recommend revisions, they must provide a written, reasoned justification for their decision. Reviews, certified by the reviewers’ handwritten or electronic signature, are retained by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.

7. The editorial board’s decision is communicated to the authors. If revisions to the article are required, the text of the review is sent to the authors without disclosing the reviewers’ personal details. After the changes have been made, the revised version of the manuscript is submitted for re-review, during which the reviewers may recommend further amendments. It should be noted that revising the article does not guarantee its subsequent acceptance for publication. If, in the reviewers’ opinion, the changes made are insufficient, the manuscript may be rejected.

8. The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on an analysis of the reviews and the reviewers’ recommendations, taking into account the experts’ reasoned conclusions and the material’s compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding the publication of articles authored by himself, members of his family or colleagues, nor regarding materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. In such cases, manuscripts undergo independent peer review without the involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or his editorial team, and the final decision on their publication is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Typical duration of peer review: 2–4 weeks

Average time to first decision: 4–8 weeks.