Peer Review Procedure

Type of review

The journal “Literary Process: Methodology, Names, Trends” applies the double-blind review procedure (the author does not know the name and affiliation of the expert and vice versa). The interaction of authors and reviewers is provided by the Editor-In-Chief, Deputy Editor in Chief, and Executive Editor. Authors and reviewers do not interact directly with each other.

An objective independent review provides an assessment of the content of the article, its relevance, compliance with the profile of the journal, the adequacy of the review of scientific literature, comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the covered study.

The stages of reviewing are:

  1. Automated verification of compliance with academic integrity in the article (including checking for plagiarism using Unicheck and other technical means) during the week.
  2. Preliminary assessment of the article scope, content and format relevance by the members of the editorial board up to 7 days.
  3. Selection of independent experts in the field relevant to the submission and their appointment as the reviewers from 3 to 7 days.
  4. Reviewers' work for four weeks.
  5. Transfer to the author comments and recommendations of the reviewer from 3 to 7 days.
  6. Finalization of the article by the author for 4 weeks.
  7. Approval of the revised article for 2 weeks.  If necessary, repeating the third — sixth stages or appointing an additional reviewer.

Evaluation criteria

  • alignment with the journal’s scope and thematic focus;
  • scholarly originality and relevance;
  • clarity in stating the research aims and objectives;
  • soundness of methodology;
  • accuracy of interpretation of results;
  • contribution to the advancement of the discipline;
  • quality of presentation and compliance with formatting requirements.

Rights and responsibilities of reviewers and editors

  • Reviewers must observe principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and impartiality, and must avoid any conflicts of interest.
  • When appropriate, reviewers may recommend the involvement of additional experts.
  • Editors are responsible for ensuring the transparency and timeliness of the review process, effective communication with authors, and adherence to high ethical standards.
  • The final decision on publication rests with the editorial board, chaired by the Editor-in-Chief.