Peer Review Process

Materials will be subject to the double-blind peer-review process. During the course of the review process the editor may request additional materials including and data if they are seen as essential for judging the merits of the research. All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.

The editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board do not disclose any information about the submitted work. Reviewers receive an article for examination without data about the authors, and the authors of the article receive the results of the review without information about the reviewer. If necessary, the article may be returned to the authors for refinement and answer the questions. 

Articles in the journal are published in Ukrainian and English.

The procedure for reviewing in the journal "Modern medical technology"

  1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Modern medical technology" and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

  2. The journal "Modern medical technology" uses Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • the reviewers do not know the personal information of the author / authors;
  • the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewers.
  1. The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Submission Requirements set out on the site.
  2. The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) determines 2 reviewers from the membership of the editorial board, who oversees the relevant scientific direction, for the article to be published.
  • In the absence of a members of the editorial board – the curators of the respective direction, the Editor-in-Chief (deputy Editor-in-Chief) defines the external reviewers for the provided article.
  • Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).
  1. After an expert evaluation of a scientific article, the reviewers may:
  • recommend article for posting;
  • recommend the article for its publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
  • do not recommend article for posting.
    If the reviewers recommends the article for posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision
  1. When reviewing scientific articles reviewers must:
  • pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
  • correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
  • assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
  • adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
    The necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.
    It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.
  1. Scientific articles may be sent for further consideration:
  • insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific article;
  • insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
  • acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  1. The executed reviews are sent to the editor by e-mai/
  2. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewers) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.