For reviewers


The aim of review is the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific works through the establishment of quality standards of the author's manuscripts, its compliance for the profile of the Journal, the object and subject of medical sciences of "Dentistry" and "Otorhinolaryngology" in order to maintain the high scientific, theoretical and practical level of the "Ukrainian Dental Journal ".

The procedure for reviewing the manuscripts determines the procedure of monitoring the manuscripts of scientific articles, submitted by authors to the journal "Ukrainian Dental Journal" (hereinafter - the Journal). This procedure is determined by established standards that determine the quality of published articles. The process of the analysis of scientific articles is aimed at identifying the degree of its value, originality, actuality and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of Journal, the suitability of the manuscript for publication, taking into account the requirements of the Committee on ethics in publications – Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – and is based on the experience of leading editorial and scientific communities in order to improve the quality and integrity of printed materials, to overcome bias and impropriety in the acceptance or rejection of articles.


  • analysis of general scientific level of the manuscript, in particular research actuality and the level of coverage of existing medical branch problems, its significance for decision of the important scientific and/or clinical tasks, correctness and relevance of the methods application at the conducted researches, the expediency of the discussion procedure, the level of generalization at formulation of research conclusions, etc.;
  • analysis of content quality and structuring of the manuscript;
  • checking the correct use of professional (special) terminology, conceptual apparatus;
  • assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.

In Journal the regulation of double «blind» (anonymous) review is observed:

  • personal data of the author/authors are not disclosed to the reviewesr;
  • the personal data of the reviewers are not disclosed to the author/authors;
  • reviewers and authors interact exclusively through authorized members of the editorial board.

The Editorial Board does not disclose information related to the manuscript (table of contents, review process, critical comments of reviewers, and final decision) except the members of the Journal's editorial board, author(s), and reviewers.

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to primary control regarding the completeness and correctness of its design and compliance at the Guidelines for Authors

The primary expert evaluation of a scientific article is created by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors.

Terms of reviewing are determined with orders and quantity of manuscripts sent to the editor board. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of its receipt by the editorial board. Manuscripts that highlight particularly relevant problems of science, as well as contain fundamentally new information, may be published out of turn by decision of the editorial board.

Terms of reviewing of the manuscript are from one until two months from the day the article was got for reviewing.

The editors do not occupy in substantive discussion of manuscripts with the authors, do not conduct correspondence on the technology of writing and design of scientific publications, and do not deal with bringing the manuscript to the required scientific and methodological level.

Scientific articles may be sent for additional review in the following cases:

  • insufficient qualification declared by the expert in the issues considered in the manuscript;
  • insufficiently level of primary expert opinion;
  • acute debatability of the provisions expressed in the manuscript.

The scanned copy of completed review is sent by the reviewer to the editors by e-mail.


Manuscripts which the specific research subject of the Journal is missing, are not send for reviews. The information about refusal of further publication is sent to the author.

The author(s) submits to the editorial board a manuscript that accords the requirements of the Journal`s policy, as well as the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not accord the accepted requirements are not registered and are not subject to further consideration and its authors are notified.

The unique registration code that provides the author’s anonymity at criticizing is appropriated to manuscripts, presented for a publication in Collection.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal's editors are assigned a unique registration code, which ensures the author's anonymity during review.

For all manuscripts submitted to the reviewer, the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author's text must be determined using appropriate software (Detector Plagiarist, Antiplagiat).

Those Manuscripts that comply with the Journal's policy and the rules for preparing articles for publication, as well as in the presence of a positive verification of the plagiarism check are sent for expertise to reviewers from the editorial board who corresponding area of knowledge.


The manuscripts are passing the primary expert evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or the Associate Editor. They determines the correspondence of the Journal scientific profile, the completeness and accuracy of the design according the Guidelines for authors that is published on the Journal's website.

All Manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board will be given to two reviewers according to the type of their research profile. The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal appoints the reviewers or the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted by the Editor-in-Chief to one of the members of the editorial board, under certain circumstances. In some cases, the question of the reviewers selecting can be decided at a meeting of the editorial board. According to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief the urgent manuscripts of prominent scientists which are given to editorial office at the initiative of the editorial board or at its request may be exempted from the standard review procedure.

Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to double-blind principles (bilateral «blind» co-operation, when neither author nor reviewer knows about each other). Communication between author and reviewers takes place online through the responsible secretary of the Journal. At the request of the reviewer and upon agreement with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction between author and reviewer can take place in an open mode, if such a decision is made, but only when direct interpersonal interaction will improve the style and logic of the presentation of the research material.

The editorial board ensures consideration of all articles in each issue of the Journal in the mode of double-blind review. The editorial board recommends using the developed standard Review form, that is posted on the Journal's website.

In some case provided by the editorial board, one-sided "blind" review of the manuscript in single-blind mode are allowed (the Reviewer knows the Author`s name, the Author does not know the Reviewer’s name), if it will contribute to the improvement of the manuscript and the harmonization of scientific communication.

For the analysis of articles as reviewers, well-known domestic and foreign highly qualified specialists who possess thorough professional knowledge, competences, have experience in scientific, analytical and expert work in a specified scientific direction, as well as publications that correspond to the scientific profile of the publication and published in publications included in A list of specialized scientific publications of Ukraine or in domestic and/or foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus scientometric databases. A reviewer cannot be a co-author of the manuscript being reviewed, as well as academic supervisors of degree holders, members of the editorial board.

After receiving the manuscript, the Reviewer evaluates the possibility of observing its materials within 14 days, based on the appropriateness of his own qualifications in the direction of the analyzed research and the absence of any conflict of scientific interests. In cases of an emerging bias or conflicting interests due to competition or different views, the reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript and inform the editorial board about it. The editorial board must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

The reviewer sends a conclusion to the Journal editorial office about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of publishing the manuscript. The terms of review in each individual case may change depending on the conditions, the creation of which is necessary for the most objective assessment of the manuscript value.

After the final analysis of the manuscript, the reviewer fills out a standardized form that contains his final conclusions. When preparing this form, the editorial board used and summarized the provisions of the internationally recognized recommendations on the review procedure of the Review Quality Instrument.

The Editorial Board of the Journal sends a review with the results of the manuscript analysis to the corresponding author by e-mail.


At the author's request, the editors inform him of the editorial board's decision to accept the manuscript for publication.

The decisions can be as following:

  • to recommend for publication in the original form,
  • to recommend to be accepted for publication after the author has made correction all accepting the comments and suggestions of the reviewer,
  • to reject in the submitted form for finalizing and making significant editing, taking into account the comments and suggestions expressed by the reviewer and additional review through the appointment of another reviewer after the finalization of the manuscript by the author.
  • to reject the manuscript as submitted.

The manuscript is sent to the author for correspondence to improve it and submit an updated version if the review contains remarks suggesting the need to finalize the manuscript (make certain corrections).

If the reviewer recommends the manuscript for publication after its revision taking into account comments, or does not recommend the manuscript for publication, the reason for such a decision should be indicated in the review.

Author can correctly and reasonably refute the indicated imperfections, or argue the motivation of those author's provisions that the reviewer perceives as inappropriate and inappropriate, if author disagrees with the provisions of the review.

Author adds to the updated manuscript (taking into account the opinion of the reviewer) a letter that contains answers to all comments and explanations for the changes made in it. The improved version of the manuscript is resubmitted to the reviewer for a second decision and for the preparation of a motivated opinion on the possibility of its publication in case of agreement with the author.

Reasons for re-review can be:

  • insufficient qualification of the expert in the issues discussed in the scientific article;
  • insufficiently high level of the initial expert opinion;
  • sharp debatable nature of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.

The manuscript is reviewed at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board, which organizes an additional or repeated review by another specialist in cases of controversial situations and of disagreement between the author and the reviewer. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in case of the author's inability to refute the reviewer arguments or in case of author's unwillingness to take into account the suggestions and remarks of the expert.

At the request of the first reviewer, the editorial board can provide the manuscript to another reviewer with mandatory observance of the principles of double-blind review.

The final decision to publish a manuscript that has been additionally reviewed or re-reviewed is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his behalf, by the Associate Editor), or by a meeting of the editorial board, if necessary. The responsible secretary of the editorial board notifies the author of the manuscript about the received decision on the acceptance of the manuscript for publication and informs the author about the expected date of publication.

If the re-reviewed manuscript has a positive decision on its publication, such a manuscript is included in the editorial portfolio of the Journal and must be published in order of priority and taking into account its relevance. At the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the Manuscript may be published out of turn in the next issue of the Journal, in certain cases due to publishing needs (topical, topical, etc).

The editorial board reserves the right to scientific and literary editing of the content of manuscripts in agreement with the author. Minor corrections of a lexical-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, linguistic-stylistic or formal-technical nature, which do not affect the quality of the content of the manuscript, are made by the technical editor without agreement with the author.

The editors provide the author with a certificate of acceptance of the manuscript for publication signed by the Editor-in-Chief, if such a request exists.

The date of acceptance of the manuscript for publication is considered the date of the editorial board's decision regarding the justification of publishing the article in a specific issue of the Journal.


The manuscript does not contain annotations in Ukrainian and/or English, or the annotation does not meet the established requirements in terms of the number of signs and content.

The structure of the Manuscript does not comply with the requirements.

The content of the Manuscript is not detailed enough for readers to fully understand the approach proposed by the author.

The manuscript does not contain scientific and/or clinical novelty. The Manuscript does not clearly state which part of the text or conclusions reflect novelty in science and/or clinical practice and are different from what is already known.

Violations of other scientists' copyrights were found in the Manuscript: interference with their intellectual property, incorrect citations, lack of references, etc.

The Manuscript does not confirm the authenticity of the given facts and data, the conclusions are not substantiated.

The manuscript contains theories, concepts, empirical materials, conclusions, etc., which are not fully disclosed or not supported by the presented data, arguments, or information provided.

The manuscript does not provide a sufficient description of the methods, techniques and materials that would allow other scientists to repeat the experiment if necessary.

The Manuscript lacks clear and understandable descriptions or explanations of the tested hypotheses, content and essence of experiments, examples of statistical data or experimental samples, etc.

The procedure of the conducted experiment was unsuccessfully or unclearly described in the Manuscript. Mistakes were made in statistical indicators.

The manuscript does not meet the norms of language culture and written speech.

References to literature sources are incorrectly formatted.


The repeated scientific analysis of the manuscript by the reviewer involves the necessary next steps of the author: Note all comments made by the editor and reviewer(s).

Conduct all additional experiments or re-analyze the data obtained in the experiment, taking into account the analytical considerations and recommendations of the reviewers.

Comment on all changes made in the content of the Manuscript and send comments by return letter to the e-mail:

Provide a tolerant scientific answer to all debatable questions. Highlight points of comments with which the author agrees and with which author does not.

Highlight in color all changes in the manuscript that were made during its finalization.

Return the revised manuscript in return email by the deadline set by the Editor(s).


The manuscript does not correspond to the Journal's scientific profile.

Checking the manuscript in Detector Plagiarism and Anti Plagiat software did not give a positive result (plagiarism was detected).

The manuscript does not meet the requirements stipulated by the standardized approaches to scientific articles established by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international conventions.

The comments of the reviewers regarding the debatable issues that arose during the review were not taken into account.

The editorial board decided to return the manuscript to the author without the right to resubmit it to the editorial office based on the expert assessment of two reviewers.


Download form (DOC)