The procedure of materials review in the journal "Holocaust Studies: A Ukrainian Focus"
Our publication aims to publish only really professional texts. Thus, all materials undergo a double-sided blind (anonymous) peer-review procedure.
After receiving the material proposed for publication, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment of its compliance with the profile of the publication, academy standards and design requirements.
Then the Responsible editor appoints the reviewer (or reviewers) for the article. Among reviewer(s) may be a member of the Editorial Board or an external expert specializing in the relevant field (a mandatory condition is the availability of reviewers’ own publications on the topic in the last 5 years). To exclude the possibility of influence on the reviewer and/or subjectivization of his assessments, the review procedure is anonymous:
- the reviewer has no information about the author/authors;- the author/authors are not disclosed to reviewers.
When evaluating materials, the editorial board recommends reviewers to pay special attention to:
- The correctness of setting research goals and objectives;
- Complete accounting for available sources and special literature;
- Correspondence of the author's conclusions to the analyzed sources;
- Absence of plagiarism, the correctness of references.
According to the results of the expert evaluation, the reviewer can:
- recommend the paper for publication;- recommend the paper for publication after revision based on comments and suggestions made;- not recommend the paper for publication.
The reviewer should clearly motivate his decision. To simplify the design of the results of the expert review, the Editorial Board of the journal advises reviewers to use the form available on link.
The review is sent to the Editorial Board by e-mail as a scanned copy..
The Editorial Board sends copies of reviews (with hidden reviewers' data) to the authors of submitted materials along with a notification about their acceptance or refusal of publication..
The editorial office provides the possibility of an additional review of materials. The main reason for it may be a sharp discussion of the provisions expressed in the proposed publication. A low level of initial expert opinion may be considered another reason.