All research manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the “Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law” (hereinafter – the Journal) undergo a mandatory independent peer review and scientific editing process. Book reviews and official information reports are exempt from this process.
The Journal applies a strict double-blind peer review model. This is an anonymous evaluation process where both the reviewer and author identities are completely concealed from each other throughout the entire publishing cycle.
The purpose of the peer review process is to eliminate poor research practices, ensure academic integrity, and maintain a consistent balance of interests among authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers, and the institutions where the research was conducted. The primary objective is to select and publish manuscripts of the highest scientific quality.
Manuscript Evaluation Stages
Stage 1: Desk Review and Plagiarism Screening
- Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the Managing Editor to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope (Aims & Scope) and formatting guidelines. This stage takes up to 7–10 working days.
- Mandatory Plagiarism Check: Prior to being sent to reviewers, all papers are screened for textual similarity using specialized plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts showing signs of academic plagiarism or text recycling (self-plagiarism) are rejected immediately without the right to resubmit.
Stage 2: Allocation and Confidential Evaluation
- Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned by the Co-Editors-in-Chief to at least two qualified external experts within the relevant field of law.
- To ensure confidentiality, all communication between the editorial office, authors, and reviewers is conducted electronically via the journal’s official email.
- Manuscripts are submitted to reviewers in a completely anonymized form, excluding authors’ names, affiliations, places of study, or any other data that might reveal authorship.
- Reviewers perform a critical analysis of the scientific paper and record their feedback, comments, and conclusions using a standardized peer review form. The standard review period is 4–6 weeks.
Stage 3: Review Criteria
Reviewers comprehensively assess the advantages and disadvantages of the manuscript, focusing on the following core parameters:
- Relevance of the topic and scientific novelty of the study.
- Theoretical and methodological quality and the validity of the conclusions.
- Practical value and scientific significance for the advancement of constitutionalism.
- Compliance of the manuscript with the Journal’s publication ethics principles.
Stage 4: Editorial Decisions and Handling Disagreements
- Revisions and Corrections: If a reviewer indicates the need for specific corrections, the manuscript is sent back to the authors with a request to address the comments or provide a reasoned rebuttal. Authors must attach a formal response letter to the revised manuscript, detailing how each comment was addressed. The revised version is re-submitted to the reviewers for final approval.
- Handling Conflicting Reviews: In cases where reviewers’ opinions clash (e.g., one recommends acceptance and the other recommends rejection), the Editorial Board appoints a third independent reviewer (umpire) or brings the manuscript to a meeting of the editorial board for further consideration.
- Appeals Procedure: If authors disagree with the editorial or reviewers’ decisions, they have the right to submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. The Co-Editors-in-Chief thoroughly investigate the matter and make the final decision.
Stage 5: Approval and Pre-publication Processing
- While editorial decisions are heavily guided by positive peer reviews, the final decision on whether a manuscript is published rests with the Co-Editors-in-Chief. Once approved, the Managing Editor notifies the author and specifies the expected publication timeframe.
- Approved articles are published in chronological order based on queuing and relevance. In exceptional cases, at the discretion of the Co-Editors-in-Chief, an article may be fast-tracked for publication in the upcoming issue.
- The accepted paper is passed to the literary and technical editors. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not alter the content are made without the author’s prior agreement. If necessary, page proofs may be sent to the author for final approval before publication.
Core Guidelines and Ethical Duties in Peer Review
- Confidentiality and Property Rights: Reviewers are explicitly informed that all manuscripts received for review are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute strictly confidential information. Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the article or use any data or ideas from it prior to its official publication.
- Strict AI Prohibition: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading the manuscript, in whole or in part, into artificial intelligence tools or Large Language Models (such as ChatGPT, Claude) to generate reviews, summaries, or translations. Doing so constitutes a direct violation of author confidentiality and copyright.
- Recusal and Conflict of Interest: Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate the manuscript, cannot meet the specified deadlines, or has a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other professional/personal relationships with the authors or institutions connected to the paper must notify the editorial office immediately and decline the invitation.
- Stability of Editorial Decisions: Articles formally accepted for publication cannot be rejected later, unless academic dishonesty or research misconduct is subsequently proven. A change or replacement in the editorial team does not affect positive publication decisions made by previous editors.