Peer-review process

General Provisions

All manuscripts submitted to the electronic peer-reviewed academic journal Coordinates of Public Administration undergo mandatory scientific peer review. The purpose of the review process is to provide an independent assessment of the scientific quality of the article, its compliance with the journal’s scope, principles of academic integrity, contemporary publishing standards, and the criteria of a recognized scholarly journal.

Type of Peer Review

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, and the reviewer does not receive information about the author(s) of the manuscript. This approach ensures impartiality, objectivity, and independence of expert evaluation.

In exceptional cases, where the subject matter requires highly specialized expertise, the Editorial Board may involve an additional reviewer or an independent expert.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected from among scholars who possess:

– an academic degree in a relevant or related field;

– publications on topics closely related to the manuscript;

– appropriate professional expertise in public administration and governance;

– experience in research, expert, educational, or managerial activities;

– absence of any actual or potential conflict of interest with the author(s).

A reviewer must not evaluate a manuscript if there are circumstances that may affect impartiality, including institutional dependency, joint publications, or personal or professional relationships with the author(s).

Review Timeline

The standard review period is up to 14 calendar days from the date the manuscript is assigned to the reviewer. Where additional expertise is required or the subject matter is particularly complex, this period may be extended by decision of the Editorial Board.

Evaluation Criteria

During the review process, the following aspects are assessed:

– relevance of the article to the journal’s scope;

– significance of the research problem;

– scientific originality;

– theoretical and practical relevance of the results;

– clarity of the research aim, objectives, and methodology;

– logical structure and coherence of the manuscript;

– reliability of the data used;

– accuracy of the literature analysis;

– validity of the conclusions;

– compliance with academic integrity standards;

– absence of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification;

– quality of academic writing, terminological precision, and stylistic consistency.

Documentation of Review Results

The results of the peer review are documented in the form of a written report or a completed review form. The review must include a reasoned evaluation of the manuscript, specific comments, and a final recommendation.

Based on the review, the following recommendations may be made:

– accept the manuscript without revisions;

– accept the manuscript after minor revisions;

– return the manuscript for major revision with subsequent re-review;

– reject the manuscript as not meeting the scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements of the journal.

Revision of the Manuscript

If the reviewer provides comments, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision. Authors are required to address the comments or provide a reasoned explanation for any recommendations that have not been followed.

After revision, the author submits the updated version of the manuscript to the Editorial Office. Where necessary, the manuscript may be reassigned to the reviewer or an additional expert.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editorial Board, taking into account the results of peer review, the manuscript’s compliance with journal requirements, and adherence to academic integrity standards.

The Editorial Board may decide to:

– accept the manuscript for publication;

– accept the manuscript after revision;

– send the manuscript for additional review;

– reject the manuscript.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to perform scientific, literary, and technical editing of the manuscript without altering the substantive content of the author’s work.

Appeals

In the event of disagreement with the review outcome, the author has the right to submit a reasoned appeal addressed to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal is considered by the Editorial Board, and, if necessary, the manuscript may be sent for additional independent review.

The decision of the Editorial Board following the appeal is final.

Preparation for Publication

After receiving a positive review, addressing all comments, and completing editorial processing, the manuscript is forwarded for typesetting. The author must approve the final editorial version prior to publication.

The recommendation for publication of each journal issue is considered by the Editorial Board and carried out in accordance with the internal procedures of Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas.

Confidentiality

All materials related to the peer review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, and other involved parties must not disclose the content of the manuscript, review results, or editorial decisions to third parties.