The editorial board of the journal «GRAIL OF SCIENCE» adheres in its work to the principles of integrity, transparency, and responsibility, conducts internal review of manuscripts submitted for publication, and ensures external review by independent experts in accordance with the double-blind peer review procedure, based on the principle of objectivity and in accordance with the recommendations of international organizations in the field of publication ethics and relevant national standards, in particular:
– peer review recommendations by the
Committee on Publication Ethics
– recommendations on ethics and editorial processes by the
World Association of Medical Editors
– principles set out in the
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment
– recommendations on the peer review process by the
European Association of Science Editors
– as well as compliance requirements defined in the
Procedure for the Formation of the List of Scientific Professional Publications of Ukraine, as amended by the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine dated January 19, 2026, № 56
Procedure for the Formation of the List of Scientific Professional Publications of Ukraine
Детальніше
Purpose of Peer Review:
– selection of scientifically sound, relevant, and ethically acceptable manuscripts;
– providing authors with professional comments for improving the manuscript;
– maintaining the appropriate academic standard of the journal;
– preventing the publication of works containing signs of plagiarism, falsification, fabrication of data, duplicate publication, or other violations of publication ethics.
Type of Peer Review.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review model. Within this model:
– the reviewer is not provided with the personal data of the author(s);
– the author(s) are not provided with the personal data of the reviewer;
– communication between participants in the process is carried out through the editorial board and the means defined by the journal for the editorial process.
Criteria for Reviewer Selection.
A reviewer for a specific manuscript is selected by the editor or an authorized member of the editorial board based on the following criteria:
– correspondence of scientific specialization to the subject of the manuscript;
– availability of recent scientific publications in the relevant field;
– absence of conflicts of interest with the author(s), institution, or subject of the research;
– sufficient experience to provide an independent and reasoned evaluation;
– willingness to comply with confidentiality, deadlines, and ethical requirements of the journal.
Forms of Documentation of the Peer Review Process.
To organize the editorial process, the journal uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform and the editorial office’s corporate email. This ensures recording of the stages of submission, assignment of editors and reviewers, sending of official notifications, receipt of reviews, editorial decision-making, and confirmation of communication between the author, editor, and reviewer.
The following are used to document the editorial process:
– electronic manuscript records in the Open Journal Systems (OJS);
– official editorial messages and event logs within the editorial process;
– emails from the editorial office’s corporate email;
– a standard review form approved by the editorial board;
– additional files with reviewer comments, if necessary.
Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation:
– compliance with the journal’s scope and profile;
– relevance of the scientific problem;
– scientific novelty and/or practical significance;
– clarity of formulation of the aim and objectives;
– adequacy of the theoretical framework and literature review;
– correctness and sufficiency of the methodology;
– logical consistency of presentation and validity of conclusions;
– correctness of the use of tables, figures, schemes, and formulas;
– reliability of data and absence of signs of manipulation of results;
– correctness of citations and consistency between the reference list and in-text citations;
– compliance with ethical requirements, including disclosure of conflicts of interest, proper authorship, ethical oversight, etc.
Procedure and Timelines for Manuscript Review.
Preliminary editorial review. up to 36 hours
Each manuscript, before being submitted to the editor and external peer review, undergoes a preliminary review by the editorial secretary, which includes:
– verification of completeness of submission;
– verification of compliance of formatting with journal requirements;
– assessment of compliance with the journal’s scope, profile, and editorial policy;
– initial assessment of academic integrity;
– initial assessment of the correctness of disclosure of conflicts of interest, use of AI tools, etc.;
At this stage, the manuscript may be returned to the author for technical revision, rejected, or forwarded for editorial review.
Editorial review. up to 48 hours
During the editorial review, manuscripts are checked using specialized software StrikePlagiarism.com, including the AI Writing Check module, to detect text similarities and risks of AI use. The results of such checks are considered by the editorial board in the context of the nature of borrowings, correctness of citation, presence of references, possible self-plagiarism, duplication of publications, or other signs of research misconduct. During the editorial review, the compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s policies on plagiarism, AI, conflicts of interest, ethical oversight, etc. is determined. The expert evaluation of the scientific manuscript is carried out by an authorized member of the editorial board. Decisions are made based on the scientific quality, integrity, substantiation, and relevance of the manuscript..
External double-blind peer review. up to 28 days
An authorized member of the editorial board, in accordance with the selection criteria, appoints external reviewers for the manuscript. Each reviewer has the right to decline the review in case of an obvious conflict of interest. The editorial board recommends using the journal’s approved standard review form, which includes manuscript evaluation criteria, a section for analytical comments, and a final conclusion block of the reviewer. The review is carried out according to the manuscript evaluation criteria established by this regulation. All materials, reviews, and editorial communications within the peer review process are confidential.
After the expert evaluation of the scientific work, the reviewer may:
– recommend publication;
– recommend publication after revision taking into account the comments and suggestions provided;
– not recommend publication.
Additional review (if necessary). up to 28 days
The manuscript may be sent for additional review if:
– the editorial board considers that an additional expert evaluation is required;
– there are significant discrepancies between reviewers’ conclusions;
– the reviewer has indicated insufficient competence regarding certain aspects;
– the content is controversial or interdisciplinary to the extent that it requires additional expertise.
Decision-making and informing the author about the results. up to 24 hours
An authorized member of the editorial board, based on the results of the editorial review and peer review, makes a decision regarding the manuscript:
– accept the manuscript for publication;
– accept the manuscript after revision;
– reject the manuscript.
The editorial board informs the author of the decision and, if necessary, provides summarized comments for revision or reasoned explanations for rejection. Communication is carried out via the official corporate email of the journal.
Appeal of an Editorial Decision.
The author has the right to submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that:
– the peer review was conducted with significant procedural violations;
– the decision is based on a factual error;
– the author can provide new substantial explanations or documents.
The appeal is considered by the editorial board separately from the initial review in accordance with the established Complaint Handling Procedure. If necessary, the manuscript may be assigned to another editor or an independent additional reviewer.
Edition dated 23.01.2026
