Peer-review process

  1. Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out in order to maintain the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal «Didaktyka» and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works.
  2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to initial control for completeness and correctness of their design and compliance with the Instructions for authors published on the website.
  3. The primary expert review of a scientific article is conducted by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.
  • In the absence of a member of the editorial board - the curator of the relevant area, the external reviewer for the submitted article is determined by the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief).
  • Reviewers should be recognized experts in the topic of the submitted manuscript and have publications in the field of research (preferably within the last 5 years).
  1. After expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
  • recommend an article for placement;
  • to recommend the article for publication after the author's finalization, taking into account the expressed comments and wishes;
  • do not recommend an article for placement.

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

The editors recommend using the developed standard feedback form, which is posted on the site's website, when reviewing.

  1. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers must:
  • pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • describe the theoretical and applied significance of the research;
  • evaluate how the author's conclusions correlate with existing scientific concepts;
  • compliance by the authors with the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.

A necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.

In the reviews, it is advisable to note the appropriateness of the style, logic, and scientificity of the presentation, as well as to draw conclusions about the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.

  1. Scientific articles can be sent for revision:
  • insufficient expert qualification specified in the issues considered in the scientific article;
  • insufficiently high level of initial expert assessment;
  • sharp polemics of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  1. The completed review is sent to the editors by e-mail in the form of a scanned copy.
  2. The editors send the authors copies of the reviews (without the name, so as not to disclose the reviewer's data) or a reasoned refusal of the editors to publish this particular manuscript.