Peer Review Procedure

The Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law ensures a transparent, consistent and confidential editorial and publishing process. The review procedure depends on the type of material submitted for publication.

Double-anonymous peer review (double-blind peer review) is applied to Research Articles. Other types of content published by the Journal are not subject to the double-blind peer review procedure and are considered by the editorial office according to their genre, subject matter and editorial criteria.

1. Materials Subject to Peer Review

Double-blind peer review is applied to materials published as Research Articles.

Other types of content published by the Journal include, among others:

• Current Interviews;
• Analytical Materials;
• Editorial Materials;
• European Standards of Constitutionalism;
• Discussion Contributions;
• Constitutional Reviews;
• Research Reports;
• Reviews;
• European Integration Issues;
• Legal Heritage;
• Constitutional Process Practice;
• Book and Publication Reviews;
• Young Scholars’ Contributions.

Such materials undergo editorial consideration and selection appropriate to their type, taking into account their content, relevance to the Journal’s scope, timeliness and editorial requirements.

2. Peer Review Model for Research Articles

The Journal uses a double-anonymous peer review (double-blind peer review) model. Under this procedure:

• reviewers are not provided with information identifying the authors;
• authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers;
• the manuscript is submitted for review in anonymized form;
• each Research Article is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant academic and professional expertise;
• reviewers must not have a conflict of interest concerning the authors, the research or institutions connected with the manuscript.

The Journal does not guarantee acceptance of an initially submitted manuscript.

3. Stage 1. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office conducts an initial screening, including:

• checking the manuscript for relevance to the Journal’s scope;
• checking compliance with the formal submission requirements;
• checking whether the principal information required for editorial processing has been provided;
• screening for possible signs of academic misconduct and problematic text overlap;
• checking for potential conflicts of interest or other circumstances that may prevent an impartial review.

The usual timeframe for the initial editorial screening is 7–10 working days.

Following the initial screening, the editorial office may:

• send the manuscript for peer review;
• return the manuscript to the author for correction of formal deficiencies;
• reject the manuscript if it falls outside the Journal’s scope, does not comply with the requirements, or contains substantial problems that prevent further consideration.

4. Stage 2. Selection of Reviewers and Submission for Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent external specialists in the relevant field of law or in a related field required for a proper assessment of the research.

When selecting reviewers, the editorial office considers their academic expertise, relevance to the subject of the manuscript, absence of conflicts of interest and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

A manuscript subject to double-anonymous peer review is submitted to reviewers in anonymized form. Names of authors, institutional affiliations and other information that could directly reveal the identity of the authors are removed from the review version.

5. Stage 3. Evaluation of the Manuscript

Reviewers assess a Research Article with regard to, among other things:

• the relevance and clarity of the research problem;
• scientific originality and independence of the research;
• the soundness of the theoretical arguments and conclusions;
• the appropriateness of the methodology to the research objectives and questions;
• the quality of the analysis of sources, scholarly literature and, where appropriate, legal practice;
• the logic, coherence and persuasiveness of the argumentation;
• the scientific and practical significance of the findings;
• compliance with principles of academic integrity and publication ethics;
• compliance with the Journal’s requirements.

The reviewer provides a recommendation concerning the publication of the Research Article and, where appropriate, suggestions for revision.

The usual peer review period is 4–6 weeks. This period may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of suitable specialists and other circumstances. In cases of significant delay, the editorial office will, where possible, inform the author of the reasons for the delay.

6. Stage 4. Peer Review Outcomes

Following peer review, one of the following outcomes may be reached:

• accept for publication – the manuscript meets the Journal’s requirements and does not require substantial revision;
• accept subject to revision – the author is required to address the reviewers’ comments or provide reasoned responses to them;
• reject – the manuscript cannot be recommended for publication in its current form.

Where appropriate, the editorial office may invite the author to resubmit a revised manuscript. Resubmission does not constitute a guarantee of subsequent acceptance.

7. Stage 5. Revision of the Manuscript

If the reviewers request revisions, the author receives the relevant comments and recommendations.

When resubmitting a revised manuscript, the author should:

• submit the revised version of the manuscript;
• provide a response to the reviewers’ comments;
• clearly indicate which parts of the manuscript have been changed;
• provide a reasoned scholarly response where the author disagrees with a particular comment.

After revision, the manuscript may, where necessary, be sent again to the same reviewer or to other independent reviewers.

8. Stage 6. Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

Where the recommendations of two reviewers differ substantially or do not allow the editorial office to reach a well-founded decision, the Journal may:

• request an additional independent review;
• ask the reviewers to clarify particular points of their reports;
• consider the review materials at the editorial level.

The appointment of a third reviewer is not automatic in every case and is used where necessary to support a reasoned editorial decision.

9. Stage 7. Final Editorial Decision

Peer review reports constitute an important basis for editorial decision-making. The final decision on publication of a Research Article is made by the Co-Editors-in-Chief within their editorial authority.

The Co-Editors-in-Chief have equal editorial authority. In making the final decision, they take into account the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript’s relevance to the Journal’s scope, compliance with academic integrity and publication ethics requirements, and other relevant circumstances.

A positive peer review recommendation does not by itself create an automatic obligation to publish a manuscript where the editorial office identifies other substantiated reasons preventing publication.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for peer review are treated as confidential materials.

• Reviewers must not disclose the content of a manuscript or the results of their evaluation to third parties.
• Reviewers must not use information obtained during the review process for their own research before the material has been officially published.
• Manuscript materials must not be shared with other persons without permission from the editorial office.
• All participants in the review process are expected to take reasonable measures to preserve the confidentiality of the materials.

11. Conflicts of Interest and Reviewer Recusal

A reviewer must inform the editorial office of any circumstances that may affect, or may reasonably appear to affect, the impartiality of the review.

Such circumstances may include professional, personal, financial or institutional relationships with an author or an institution connected with the research, as well as direct involvement in the relevant research.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the editorial office may appoint another reviewer.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or parts of manuscripts to generative artificial intelligence systems for automated analysis, generation of a peer review, creation of conclusions, or translation of confidential material.

This requirement is intended to protect manuscript confidentiality, authors’ intellectual property and the reliability of the peer review process.

The use of artificial intelligence by authors, reviewers and the editorial office is additionally governed by the Journal’s separate AI Policy.

13. Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision. An appeal should identify specific alleged errors or procedural problems rather than merely express disagreement with an unfavorable recommendation.

Appeals are considered in accordance with the Journal’s separate Complaints and Appeals Procedure.

14. Post-Acceptance Processing

After final acceptance, the article proceeds to editorial and production processing.

• language and technical editing is carried out;
• bibliographic data and publication metadata are checked;
• the final publication version is prepared;
• a DOI and the corresponding bibliographic record are assigned;
• where appropriate, the author may be given an opportunity to check the final version before publication.

Editorial and technical corrections that do not alter the scholarly content may be made without obtaining renewed approval from the author. Substantive changes after acceptance are made only in accordance with the Journal’s editorial procedures.

15. Publication Ethics

All participants in the editorial and publishing process are expected to observe the principles of academic integrity, confidentiality, impartiality and responsible publishing practice.

Issues relating to academic misconduct, conflicts of interest, article retraction, complaints, appeals and the use of artificial intelligence are governed by the Journal’s relevant policies and procedures.

The Journal seeks to apply this procedure consistently to all Research Articles regardless of the authors, their institutional affiliation, country or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the manuscript.

For further information, please refer to the Journal’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement and Retraction & Correction Policy.