Peer Review Process
Peer Review Policy
The Interdisciplinary Cultural and Humanities Review ensures the high scientific and theoretical quality of publications through a rigorous peer review process. Its primary objectives are:
- careful selection of manuscripts for publication,
- objective evaluation of the quality of submitted materials,
- verification of compliance with scientific, stylistic, and ethical standards.
All reviewers must remain impartial and follow the principles outlined in the journal’s Publication Ethics.
Review Model
The journal applies a double-blind peer review, which means:
- reviewers have no access to authors’ personal data;
- authors remain unaware of the reviewers’ identities.
Before entering peer review, each submission undergoes:
- a plagiarism check,
- verification of compliance with the Terms of Publication and Formatting Guidelines,
- preliminary screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy.
If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (as author, co-author, or through family/professional ties), the initial screening is performed by a Deputy or another unbiased member of the Editorial Board.
Once approved, the article is:
- registered with a unique code by the technical editor,
- anonymised (author information removed),
- sent for review.
Distribution of Manuscripts
Anonymous manuscripts are forwarded:
- to a relevant member of the editorial board,
- to two external reviewers (Ukrainian or international doctors of sciences in the same field).
Important: reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and must avoid any conflict of interest.
Evaluation Criteria
When reviewing, experts address the following points:
- Does the content correspond to the stated title?
- Is the research problem relevant and original?
- Is the practical significance of the study justified?
- Does the article hold value for a broad readership?
Possible Reviewer Decisions
Reviewers may recommend:
- acceptance without changes,
- acceptance after minor revision,
- acceptance after major revision,
- rejection.
In case of revision or rejection, a written justification must be provided. Signed or electronically certified reviews are stored in the editorial office for 3 years.
Communication with Authors
- Authors receive the editorial board’s decision along with anonymised review comments.
- Revised manuscripts are resubmitted for further evaluation.
- Acceptance is not guaranteed: unsatisfactory revisions may still result in rejection.
Editorial Responsibility
- The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on reviewers’ feedback.
- The Editor-in-Chief is excluded from decisions concerning papers authored by himself, family members, colleagues, or research tied to his personal interests.
- Such cases are handled independently by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Timelines
- Typical review period: 2-4 weeks
- Median time to first decision: 4-8 weeks