All materials submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal Archive of Criminology and Forensic Sciences undergo peer review in order to select scholarly articles that meet the journal's standards and requirements. In line with COPE's approach, the editorial board ensures that expert evaluation is proper, thorough, and independent, and that editorial decisions are based on the substance of reviewers' assessments.
The journal's peer review procedure, publication ethics, and editorial policy are consistent with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The process is designed to ensure the most objective possible assessment of a scholarly article's content, determine its compliance with the journal's requirements, and provide a balanced analysis of its strengths and weaknesses.
General peer review provisions
All materials submitted to the editorial board undergo peer review in order to select articles that meet the journal's requirements.
Peer review is conducted by members of the editorial board and independent scholars working in the relevant fields. The journal applies double-anonymous peer review, under which neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other's identity.
The purpose of peer review is to assess the article's theoretical and methodological level, relevance, practical significance, and scholarly value. Manuscripts are evaluated without regard to the authors' ethnicity, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics.
The editorial board ensures transparent recording of each manuscript's editorial history, including the date of submission, date of first decision, number of review or revision rounds, date of acceptance for publication, and date of recommendation for release and print publication.
As a rule, manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers: one member of the editorial board and one independent scholar in the relevant field, or two independent scholars in the relevant field.
Selection and evaluation criteria
Reviewer selection criteria:
- a PhD or doctoral degree in the relevant field of knowledge;
- publications in the subject area of the article under review;
- published work in outlets indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science;
- no conflict of interest with the author or authors;
- no more than one reviewer from the author's institution;
- involvement of international reviewers;
- no co-authorship with the author of the reviewed article within the previous three years.
Criteria for evaluating the article:
The reviewer gives a recommendation as to whether the article may be published, may be published after revision, or may not be published, assessing the manuscript against criteria such as whether the title reflects the content, whether the topic's relevance is sufficiently established, whether recent research and publications on the problem are adequately analyzed, whether the purpose corresponds to the title and the main text, whether the research findings are logically substantiated, whether the article demonstrates scholarly novelty and a genuine contribution to the field, whether the conclusions correspond to the stated purpose, whether terminology is used consistently, whether illustrative material is properly prepared, whether the article requires substantial scholarly or literary editing, whether all cited sources are referenced correctly, and whether the references list and References section comply with the journal's requirements.
Manuscripts sent to reviewers are the intellectual property of the authors and constitute confidential information. Peer review is therefore conducted on a confidential basis, and information about the article is not disclosed to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
Members of the editorial board do not participate in editorial decisions concerning their own work.
Procedure for reviewing manuscripts
Preliminary screening and plagiarism check
Manuscripts submitted by authors that do not comply with the requirements for publication in the scientific journal Archive of Criminology and Forensic Sciences are not considered.
To determine the uniqueness of the text in each work submitted for review, the journal uses dedicated software (StrikePlagiarism). Similarity may not exceed 12% of the article's total volume. Text originality must be at least 88%.
All manuscripts are peer reviewed. After submission, a manuscript undergoes initial screening by the editorial board to determine whether it fits the journal's scope, and it may therefore be returned to the author or authors for revision. If the editorial board concludes that the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, the article is sent for peer review. Once the manuscript is received for evaluation, the Chair of the editorial board appoints reviewers with due regard to possible conflicts of interest.
Anonymous review and timeframe
Review of a scholarly article is conducted anonymously: the reviewer does not know the author's identity, and the author does not know the reviewer's identity. Communication between author and reviewer is handled by the journal's executive secretary through technical means of communication and the journal's website or platform.
The review period for a scholarly article must not exceed 60 days. In individual cases, however, the review period may be adjusted in order to ensure the most objective possible assessment of the submitted materials. Additional materials are also subject to review.
Evaluation form and editorial decisions
The electronic evaluation form used by reviewers contains a set of criteria intended to cover every aspect of the scholarly article. The final section of the form must include reviewers' comments and suggestions for improving the article. Where comments require corrections or revision, the reviews are sent to the authors without reviewer-identifying information. Reviews are retained by the editorial board for three years.
On the basis of peer review, the author may receive one of the following decisions:
- accepted for publication;
- revisions and/or further development required;
- additional review required;
- recommended for transfer to another NSC FSI publication;
- rejected for publication.
Scholarly discussion and appeal
If the reviewers reach opposing conclusions, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer or to the Chair of the editorial board for an additional opinion or a final decision.
If the manuscript is rejected or requires revision, the reviewer or reviewers provide reasons for the decision in the review form. A revised version is then sent for repeat review. If the repeat review is again negative, the article is rejected definitively and is not considered further by the editorial board.
Where publication is refused or reviewers raise substantive comments, the editorial board opens a scholarly dialogue with the author or authors in accordance with the principles of COPE.
If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, the author may submit a reasoned explanation to the editorial board. In such cases, the article is discussed at a meeting of the editorial board. The board may also send the publication for an additional or new review by another specialist, in accordance with the principle of double-anonymous peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a scholarly publication where the author or authors ignore reviewers' requirements and comments.
The editorial board also reserves the right to reject a manuscript where the author is unable or unwilling to address the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
Final decision and editing
The final decision on publication is taken by the Chair of the editorial board with due regard to the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's thematic scope.
The final decision on the content of each issue and its recommendation for publication is approved by resolution of the Academic Council of the National Scientific Center “Hon. Prof. M. S. Bokarius Forensic Science Institute” of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and is reflected by the corresponding note on the reverse side of the journal's title page.
A manuscript accepted for publication undergoes technical and literary editing. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the substance of the manuscript may be made by language editors without the author's consent. Where necessary, or at the author's request, the final version of the article with editorial and proofreading changes is sent to the author for approval.
Authors bear responsibility for the content of each scholarly article, for any infringement of copyright, and for the scholarly and practical standard of the work, including the reliability of facts, data, and conclusions.
Procedure for replacing a reviewer where a conflict of interest is identified
If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer must inform the editorial board immediately and withdraw from the review. Replacement is effected by appointing a new reviewer by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board. The manuscript is anonymized, and the previous assessment is disregarded in order to preserve objectivity.
Steps to be taken where a conflict of interest arises:
- 1) notification: once the reviewer identifies a conflict, such as personal ties or joint research, the article is returned to the editorial board within five days;
- 2) replacement: the editorial board appoints another reviewer in the relevant field of knowledge;
- 3) anonymity: the new procedure ensures double-anonymous peer review so that the earlier conflict cannot influence the assessment.
International principles and recommendations
The journal's editorial board adheres to the following principles and recommendations of international organizations:
COPE
(Committee on Publication Ethics)
- Transparency in submission, peer review, and publication.
- Impartiality and independence of editors and reviewers.
- Academic integrity, including the avoidance of plagiarism, falsification, and duplicate publication.
- Proper authorship, with a clear definition of each author's contribution.
- Clear and open procedures for handling complaints and appeals concerning publication ethics.
WAME
(World Association of Medical Editors)
- Editorial independence, with decisions taken free from pressure by sponsors, institutions, or commercial interests.
- Disclosure of conflicts of interest by all authors, reviewers, and editors.
- Objective, fair, and timely expert review.
- Transparency in funding, including disclosure of grants, sponsors, and research funding sources.
DORA
(San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment)
- Research should not be assessed solely by bibliometric indicators such as impact factor or h-index, but by its quality, originality, and contribution to scholarship.
- Different forms of research output, including software, data, algorithms, and technical solutions, should be valued alongside articles.
- Interdisciplinary research should be recognized on an equal footing with traditional publications.
- Open science should be encouraged through preprints and open access to data and code.