Peer Review Policy

General Principles

All manuscripts submitted to the Ukrainian Scientific Medical Youth Journal (USMYJ) undergo a double-blind peer review process in accordance with editorial ethics principles and international COPE standards.
The Editorial Board ensures objectivity, confidentiality, and impartiality throughout the evaluation process.

1. Stages of the Peer Review Process

1.1. Initial Editorial Assessment

At the first stage, the Managing Editor conducts an initial assessment of the manuscript within 5–7 calendar days to verify its compliance with the following criteria:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • adherence to technical formatting requirements;
  • presence of all accompanying documents (ethical statements, author agreement, author details, ORCID);
  • plagiarism screening results (using StrikePlagiarism).

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope or show more than 20% similarity with other sources are rejected without further review.

1.2. Technical Review

After passing the initial assessment, the manuscript undergoes a technical review performed by members of the Society of Young Scientists, Postgraduates and Specialists (SYSPS) of the O.O. Bohomolets National Medical University.
This stage usually lasts 14–21 days.

Technical experts ensure:

  • compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s technical and stylistic requirements;
  • consistency in the formatting of tables, figures, references, and bibliographic lists;
  • terminological accuracy, logical structure, and stylistic coherence;
  • presence of ethical statements, affiliations, and ORCID identifiers of all authors.

The composition of SYSPS members is updated annually according to the subjects and research areas of submitted manuscripts.

1.3. Scientific Peer Review

After technical verification, the manuscript is forwarded to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of research.
This process typically takes up to 21 calendar days and may be extended to 40 days if necessary.

Reviewer eligibility criteria:

  • at least one scientific publication within the last three years in journals indexed in the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science List, Scopus, or Web of Science;
  • absence of any conflict of interest with the authors.

Peer review is conducted under the double-blind principle, with anonymized coding to ensure that:

  • reviewers have no knowledge of the authors’ identities;
  • authors have no access to reviewer information.

2. Review Outcomes

Upon evaluation, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Recommend for publication — the manuscript is accepted without changes;
  2. Minor/Major revisions required — the manuscript requires revisions (authors are given up to 30 days to resubmit the revised version);
  3. Reject — the manuscript is not recommended for publication.

If revisions are required, the article may undergo a second round of review, as decided by the Editor-in-Chief.
All review reports are stored in the journal’s archive for three years.
The overall duration of this stage typically ranges from 30 to 60 days.

3. Editorial Role

The reviewers’ opinions are advisory in nature.
The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection based on the scientific value, originality, and quality of the submitted work.

4. Confidentiality and Editorial Ethics

The Editorial Board, reviewers, and authors must adhere to strict confidentiality principles:

  • the content of reviews, comments, and internal correspondence must not be disclosed;
  • materials cannot be published or shared without the written consent of the Editorial Board;
  • personal data of authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Editors do not modify author texts without prior approval.
Editorial intervention is permitted only to ensure compliance with publishing standards or to correct grammatical and factual errors — strictly with the author’s consent.

5. Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • maintain confidentiality of all submitted materials;
  • decline review in cases of conflict of interest;
  • provide unbiased and scientifically grounded evaluations;
  • inform the Editorial Board of any detected ethical violations or plagiarism.

The journal follows the principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017) and the ICMJE Recommendations (2024).