You are using an outdated browser. For a faster, safer browsing experience, upgrade for free today.

Peer-review policy and guidance

Peer-review policy

All articles published in the Ukrainian Journal of Occupational Health undergo peer review. This process consists of review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.

All article submissions are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed whether they are suitable for peer review. Any member of the Editorial Board in so long as they are not the authors of the article under review can be assigned to oversee peer review. The Editor-in-chief will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected.

Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in the area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.
● Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
● Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
● Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
● The first reviewer should be senior on topic and have published recently on the subject

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with the third parties.

The process by which manuscripts are peer reviewed is the single-blind peer review process - that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors.


Peer reviewer guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to our journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal.


Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.


Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.


Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.


The following conventions should be respected:

  • Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their reviewer role.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively.
  • Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
  • Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
  • Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
  • Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.

Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the editorial team.

We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

  • Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
  • Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
  • Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
  • Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
  • Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
  • Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
  • Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
  • Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
  • References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
  • Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
  • Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
  • Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor.

Form to be filled in (please download here):

To the Editorial Board of the «UKRAINIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH»

I, (full name) ___________________________________________________________________

(scientific degree and scientific title) ________________________________________________

(affiliation – institution, organization) _______________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Contact information (tel., address, e-mail) ____________________________________________

I recommend / do not recommend (underline) to publish the article_________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

authored by (list of authors) _______________________________________________________

REVIEW

Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.

Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.

Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.

Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?

Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.

Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?

Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?

Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.

References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.

Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?

If applicable:

Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.