Telephone

+38 (057) 704 13 18

Email Address

post@ukhin.org.ua

Office Address

Kharkiv, st. Vesnina, 7

PROVISION
on reviewing articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the scientific and technical journal "Coal Chemistry Journal"

І. General provisions

  1. This provision regulates the procedure for reviewing articles submitted to the editorial board of the scientific and technical journal "Coal Chemistry Journal" (hereinafter - the journal).
  2. In this position, the following terms are used in the following meaning:
    • The author is a person or a group of persons (a group of authors) who has prepared a scientific article,based on the results of the conducted research, and submitted it for consideration by the editorial board of the journal.
    • The editor-in-chief is the person who leads the editorial board of the journal and makes the final decisions regarding the issue of the journal.
    • Deputy chief editor is a person who organizes work on planning, timely and high-quality preparation of journal materials in print and contributes to the improvement of the impact factor of the journal.
    • Editorial board is a journal management body, which carries out a set of activities as to the formation of materials and publishing of the journal. The composition of the editorial board of the journal is available on the journal page at the link: Editorial Board Members
    • A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the journal and carries out a scientific examination of the materials, in particular articles, which are sent to the journal in order to determine the possibility of publishing these materials in the journal. The reviewer may be a person who has a doctoral degree or a PhD and published research papers on the subject matter that was stated in the article. The reviewer may be outside the editorial board.
    • Reviewing is the procedure for review and peer review by reviewers of articles received in the journal in order to establish its scientific and theoretical level and compliance with the requirements for articles of the journal.
  3. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are subject to reviewing.
  4. Articles of members of the editorial board of the journal, scientists with a significant scientific background in the relevant industry, as well as articles prepared for the journal, may not undergo a standard review procedure. Under such circumstances, the decision to accept the article for printing is made by the chief editor.
  5. Reviewers who will conduct a review of a scientific article are selected by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) of the journal, taking into account the subject matter of the article and the sphere of professional interests of experts. Experts are elected among the members of the editorial board of the journal, or reputable scientists who are not part of the editorial board, but are authoritative in the scientific direction of the article.
  6. When reviewing, experts should comply with the requirements of ethics of scientific publications, be as objective and impartial as possible.

ІІ. The order of reviewing articles

  1. The author of the article submits to the Editorial Board of the journal an article that is designed in compliance with the requirements that the journal article (hereinafter the requirements) must comply with. An article that does not meet these requirements is not registered and is not allowed for further review, as reported by the author of the article.
  2. Before reviewing, one of the deputy chief editors or the executive secretary of the journal:
    • determines the degree of uniqueness of the author's text using software (freeware eTXT Antiplagiat). If the percentage of originality of the article is less than 60%, the article is not allowed for further review and is returned to the author.
    • performs coding of an article by DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and assigning a registration number and anonymization of data concerning the author of the article).
    • a coded e-mail article is sent to the reviewer (s), who have been selected by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
    • within 5 calendar days from the date of receving the article, the reviewer should evaluate the possibility of reviewing the article, taking into account his own qualifications, the stated problems of the article and the absence of a conflict of interest, as reported by the editor-in-chief of the journal. In the event of a conflict of interest or inability to conduct a review, the chief editor decides on the appointment of another reviewer. The expert's refusal to review the article should be motivated.
  3. Within 20 calendar days from the day of receiving the article, the reviewer gives an opinion on the possibility of printing the article in the journal. If necessary, the review period of the article can be extended to 25 days, as the reviewer reports to the editor-in-chief of the journal.
  4. The review procedure is anonymous both for the author of the article and for the reviewers and is carried out by two reviewers (double “blind” review). The interaction between the author of the article and the reviewers takes place by correspondence via e-mail through the executive secretary.
  5. According to the results of the review, the reviewer fills out a standardized form (hereinafter referred to as the reviewer's article evaluation form) (Appendix No. 1 of these Regulations), where it reflects one of these conclusions:
    • Recommend an article to print;
    • Submit an article for revision to the author;
    • Do not recommend the article for printing.

    The revew form is sent to the executive secretary of the journal.

  6. The executive secretary informs the author about the results of the review of by sending an email.
  7. If the reviewer provided an opinion on the finalization of the article, the executive secretary of the journal, in agreement with the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief), sends the article to the author for revision. A list of comments, questions, and comments of the reviewer is attached to the letter. The deadline for completion is determined by the editor-in-chief of the journal and should not exceed 5 calendar days from the date the article was received by the author.
  8. The author adds a letter to the updated article. It contains answers to the comments, reviewer’s questions and explanations of all the changes that were made before the substantial content of the article.
  9. An updated version of the article is again provided to the reviewer to give an opinion. Within 5 days from the date of receiving the updated article, the reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:
    • Recommend an article for printing;
    • Do not recommend the article for printing.
  10. In the case of one positive conclusion and one negative conclusion from reviewers, the final decision on the possibility of printing an article in the journal is made by the chief editor of the journal (deputy chief editor).
  11. If the author of the article does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, he has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal. Under such circumstances, the article is reviewed at a meeting of the editorial board or at the scientific council of the State Enterprise "UKHIN", which studies in detail the opinion of the reviewer and the author of the article. The editorial board of the journal can send an article for additional review by another reviewer. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article in case of impossibility or the author’s unwillingness to take into account the comments of the reviewer (s). The author of the article is reported separately concerning any of the decisions taken by the working group.
  12. The article, which is accepted for publication, is provided to a literary editor. Minor corrections of stylistic nature, do not affect the content of the article, are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. At the request of the author, the layout of the article is returned to the author for approval. If there are a lot of linguistic and stylistic corrections and they can affect the content, the text of the article is coordinated with the author, who, if he so wishes, can make his own correction. The author must return the corrected version no later than 5 days from the date of receiving of the article with the editing of the literary editor to an email address. Editing should be coordinated within 2 days from the date of receiving the article with the editing of the literary editor by email.
  13. Among the articles that have been reviewed and have been worked out by the technical editor of the journal, the next issue of the journal is formed, which is signed by the editor-in-chief and recommended for publication by the decision of the Academic Council of one of the co-founders of the journal.
  14. Responsibility for copyright infringement lies with the author of the article. The author of the article is responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions made and the scientific and theoretical level of the article.

APPRAISAL FORM OF THE ARTICLE

Reviewer’s surname, name, patronymic
Title of the article
Registration number of the article
Date of the article received by the reviewer
Expiry date of the article
Signature of the reviewer
QUESTIONS answer «YES» or «NO»
Does the topic of the article correspond to the scientific profile of the journal?
Does the topic of the article correspond to the scientific profile of the journal?
Is the topic of the article relevant?
Does the title of the article reflect the content contained therein?
Are the purpose and objectives of the research reflected in the article clearly disclosed?
Has the stated purpose of the article achieved and its task has accomplished?
Are the results of the research methodologically correct?
Is the statement of the results of scientific research justified?
Are the findings of the study conducted complete and substantiated?
Does the article contain enough references to scientific sources, legislative acts, international and regional standards?
Does the article reflect the results of previous research on this subject and are they fully taken into account?
Does the article contain the author's own opinions as to the positions of the scholars who studied this topic?
Do the results of the research contain scientific novelty?
Does the article contain recommendations for further research on the identified issues?
the reviewer’s conclusion (to mark the "+" sign)

recommend article to print

send an article to the author for refinement

do not recommend article to print

Commentary of the article by reviewer *

Search