Review Policy

Review Process.

«Ehrlich's Journal» publishes only those materials that have successfully passed the review process. All materials submitted to the «Ehrlich's Journal» are double-blind reviewed. It is carried out by two independent reviewers who operate separately and don’t know about each other assessments. The names of the reviewers and authors are hidden from each other.

The material sent to the «Ehrlich's Journal» primarily should correspond to the thematic and technical requirements. If the material does not correspond to requirements of the Journal, it is being immediately returned to the author to make corrections. Reviewing and publishing of manuscripts are as prompt as possible. Reviewers are proposed to give an answer within 2 weeks.

Reviewing involves collaboration with experts in specific (narrow) field, who are qualified and able to provide an objective review.

The final decision on paper is made by the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief.

Foreign members of the Editorial Board of Ehrlich’s Journal are not responsible for papers that are published in Ukrainian.

On the basis of the decision, which was adopted with taking into account the received reviews, the authors are sent an email, containing an overall assessment of the manuscript and the final decision in relation to an acceptance to the publication or rejection of the manuscript.

Instructions for Reviewers.                               

Evaluation involves two stages: a preliminary overview and a detailed review.

Validity and authenticity of the results – are key aspects that should be noted in the review (The Review Form added).

Preliminary review of the manuscript gives an opportunity to the reviewer to investigate the overall value of the material and should contain the answer to the questions:

  • Is the scientific issue, chosen by the author, relevant?
  • Are the purpose and objective of the research properly formulated?
  • Do the style and the logics of rendering correlate with the scientific nature of the material?
  • Are the references to the relevant literature on the issue, present?

Detailed review of the manuscript based on an expanded study of the manuscript and includes the following items:

  • Does the author personally contribute to solving the designated issue?
  • Are the innovative and creative approaches being used in the research?
  • Are the achieved results clearly presented?
  • Does the work include significant results?
  • Do the achieved results have a theoretical value?
  • Do the achieved results have a practical value?
  • Can the manuscript be considered as a valuable contribution to the sphere?

The reviewer is also suggested to present comments to the paper and to suggest mandatory and recommended amendments.

Finally, the reviewer is asked to present the conclusion:

  1. Recommend the manuscript to be published.
  2. Recommend the manuscript to be published after appropriate amendments and improvements.
  3. Reject manuscript.