Reviewing process of a scientific article
submitted to be published in
“Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine”

1. An author (one of the co-authors) should submit a manuscript in electronic format to “Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine” email address (visnyk.napu@ukr.net). An author (one of the co-authors) should ensure the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and satisfies the requirements of content, volume, formatting, and submission (requirements).

2. An executive secretary examines the manuscript, decides whether it fits the scope of the journal and whether it meets the technical and formatting requirements. In case the manuscript fails to do so, the secretary informs the author.

3. We apply a double-blind peer review, meaning that the author's name is not made public to the reviewer, and the reviewer's name is also not revealed to the author. Any contacts between the author and the reviewer are possible only via the executive secretary of the journal.

4. The reviewer is appointed by the Editor-in-Chief of “Journal of the National Prosecution Academy of Ukraine” or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief if the Editor-in-Chief decides so. In some cases, the reviewer may be appointed at the meeting of the editorial board.

5. In case the manuscript meets the requirements of the research area and scope, as well as of content, volume, formatting, and submission, the executive secretary sends it to be reviewed by one of the members of the editorial board or by a professional in the area who demonstrates deep knowledge and relevant experience.

6. After the manuscript is received, the reviewer within five calendar days (in some cases the review period may be prolonged to ensure impartial and complete judgement, however, it must not exceed fourteen calendar days), performs its analysis in the form provided, and makes one of the following conclusions: the scientific article can be recommended for publishing; the scientific article can be recommended for publishing after the author revises the article according to the reviewer’s recommendations on improvements and revision, and further review; the scientific article cannot be recommended for publishing. The executive secretary sends a filled-in review form to the author's e-mail address.

7. In case the reviewer concludes that the scientific article can be recommended for publishing after the author revises the article according to the reviewer’s recommendations on improvements and revision, and further review, the executive secretary sends a filled-in review form to the author's e-mail for further improvement or providing a grounded rebuttal.

8. After the author revises the article according to the reviewer’s recommendations on improvements and revision, the executive secretary sends the improved manuscript to the reviewer for further review and making a decision on the possibility of its publishing.

9. If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s point of view s/he has the right to provide a grounded response. In this case, the manuscript is reviewed at the meeting of the editorial board. The editorial board can decide to appoint another reviewer. The editorial board has the right to reject the manuscript if the author is not able or is unwilling to revise the manuscript.

10. Each manuscript is checked on plagiarism via software that shows the original text, sources, and duplications in percents («eTXTАнтіплагіат», «Advego Plagiatus»).

11. The final decision on publication of each article is made by the majority of votes of the editorial board members present.

12. The contents of each issue of the journal are approved by the majority of votes of the editorial board members present. Information on approval of the issue by the editorial board is to be mentioned on the cover page (number of report and date of the meeting).

13. The executive secretary transfers the manuscript accepted to be published to professionals who perform its editing and proofreading and then sends the edited version back to the author for approval.

14. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the scientific and practical value of the article, the credibility of facts and data, validity of conclusions and recommendations.