Procedure for reviewing a scientific article submitted for publication in the collection "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald"

1. The author (one of the co-authors) sends to the e-mail address of the collection "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald", Series: "Philosophy. Pedagogy" (VISNYK@dano.dp.ua) a scientific article that corresponds to areas and issues of research that can be published in the publication, as well as requirements for content, scope, design and submission (requirements for a scientific article).
2. The Executive Secretary provides a preliminary assessment of the scientific article sent to the e-mail of the journal on the relevance of its content in the field and research issues that may be published in the collection "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald", as well as content requirements, volume, registration and submission. In case of non-compliance, the executive secretary of the journal shall notify the author.
3. The analysis and evaluation of a scientific article is carried out confidentially by double-blind peer review, when the reviewer does not know who the author of the article is and the author does not know who the reviewer of his article is. The interaction between the author and the reviewer takes place through the executive secretary of the collection.
4. The reviewer who is to carry out the review procedure is appointed by the editor-in-chief of the collection "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education Herald", Series: "Philosophy. Pedagogy", or by his decision, Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The appointment of a reviewer in some cases may be decided at a meeting of the editorial board of the collection.
5. The responsible secretary sends a scientific article, the content of which corresponds to the field and problems of scientific research that can be published in the journal, and the requirements for content, scope, design and presentation, for review by a member of the editorial board of the publication or a specialist in the relevant scientific field who has thorough professional knowledge and has work experience in the relevant scientific direction.
6. The reviewer, after receiving the scientific article within five calendar days, analyzes it in the form provided in the Review Form, and draws one of the following conclusions: the scientific article may be recommended for publication; a scientific article may be recommended for publication after revision in accordance with the comments and (or) submitted proposals and on the basis of its re-review; a scientific article cannot be recommended for publication. The executive secretary of the collection sends the review form filled in by the reviewer with the conclusion on the results of the review to the author's e-mail address.
7. If the reviewer in the Review Form concludes that the scientific article may be recommended for publication after revision in accordance with the comments and (or) proposals and on the basis of its re-review, the Executive Secretary shall forward this Review Form to the author for consideration. the time of preparation of the updated version of the scientific article or arguably refuted them.
8. The version of the scientific article corrected by the author is sent by the executive secretary to the reviewer for re-review and decision-making on the possibility of its publication.
9. The author of a scientific article who does not agree with the reviewer's conclusion has the right to provide a reasoned answer. In this case, the scientific article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board of the publication. The editorial board may decide to send the article for additional review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the comments and suggestions of the reviewer.
10. For all scientific articles submitted for review, the level of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using the appropriate software which shows the ratio of the author's text and source, as well as the coincidence of the text in percentage ("Antiplagiarism").
11. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publishing each of the submitted articles shall be made by the members of the editorial board of the collection present at the meeting by a majority of their votes.
12. The plan of issue of the next issue of the publication, which includes scientific articles recommended for publication by reviewers, is approved at the meeting of the editorial board by a majority vote of its members present. Information on the approval of the Plan of the next issue of the collection by the editorial board must be indicated on its title page (minutes of the minutes and date of the meeting).
13. The executive secretary of the collection passes the recommended article for publication to the specialists who carry out proofreading, literary and technical editing. After making the appropriate corrections, the scientific article in the form of a layout is sent to the author for approval by specialists who carry out proofreading, literary and technical editing.
14. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the scientific and practical level of the article, the reliability of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations.