Alfred Nobel University Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology                 


The aim of review is the selection of the most valuable and relevant scientific works through the establishment of quality standards of the author's manuscripts, its compliance for the profile of the Journal, the object and subject of education and psychology sciences to maintain the high scientific, theoretical and practical level of the journal.

The order of criticizing the manuscripts determines the procedure of monitoring the manuscripts of scientific articles, presented by authors to the journal, and standards of the articles, which determine quality of the published materials. The process of the analysis of scientific articles is orientated on establishment of the degree of their value, originality, actuality and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of the journal, fitness of manuscript for a publication with taking into account the requirements of the Committee on ethics in publications – Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – and by support on experience of leading scientific concords; on the increase of high quality of the printed matters, overcoming of prejudice and injustice at a rejection or acceptance of the articles.

Review tasks

• analysis of general scientific level of the manuscript, in particular research actuality and the level of coverage of existing medical branch problems, its significance for decision of the important scientific and/or clinical tasks, correctness and relevance of the methods application at the conducted researches, the expediency of the discussion procedure, the level of generalization at formulation of research conclusions, etc.;

• analysis of content quality and structuring of the manuscript;

• checking the correct use of professional (special) terminology, conceptual apparatus;

• assessment of the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.


Expert peer review is conducted according to the principle of “double-blind peer review” when neither the author is notified with the names of reviewers, nor the peer reviewers know the author's name.

The Editorial Board does not disclose information related to the manuscript (table of contents, review process, critical comments of reviewers, and final decision) except the members of the Journal's editorial board, author(s), and reviewers.

Back to top ↑


Terms of reviewing are determined with orders and quantity of manuscripts sent to the editor board. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of its receipt by the editorial board. Manuscripts that highlight particularly relevant problems of science, as well as contain fundamentally new information, may be published out of turn by decision of the editorial board.

Terms of reviewing of the manuscript are from two until four months from the day the article was got for reviewing.

Back to top ↑


Manuscripts which the specific research subject of the journal is missing, are not send for reviews. The information about refusal of further publication is sent to the author.

The author(s) submits to the editorial board a manuscript that accords the requirements of the Journal`s policy, as well as the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not accord the accepted requirements are not registered and are not subject to further consideration and its authors are notified.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal’s editors are assigned a unique registration code, which ensures the author's anonymity during review.

For all manuscripts submitted to the reviewer, the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author’s text must be determined using appropriate software.

Those manuscripts that comply with the journal’s policy and the rules for preparing articles for publication, as well as in the presence of a positive verification of the plagiarism check are sent for expertise to reviewers who corresponding area of knowledge.

Back to top ↑


The manuscripts are passing the primary expert evaluation by Chief Editor or Associate Editor. They determine:

a) correspondence to the Journal scientific profile;

b) if plagiarism is discovered in the manuscript;

c) significance of the manuscript’s contribution to existing research;

d) correspondence to common requirements for manuscripts (structure, article submission guidelines, availability of annotations and key words in Ukrainian, as well as a summary of the article in English in the volume established by the editorial board, bibliography, information about the author that contains contact information, scanned copy certified by signatures of all co-authors for publication of the material in the journal, etc).

Executive secretary notifies the authors about the receipt of the article, the results of the pre-evaluation and article’s assignment for reviewing by e-mail. If the article doesn’t pass these initial checks Chief Editor might reject the article immediately.

Main reasons for rejecting articles at the pre-evaluation stage:

Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal;

Plagiarism was identified in the manuscript;

Insufficient explanations when justifying the relevance and novelty of the study (many authors tend to cite the reason that "this has never been studied before" to explain why this paper is significant. It’s insufficient, the author needs to give a specific reasons that prove relevance and novelty. In other terms – not provide answer to the question: “Has this been investigated before?” but answer the question: “Why is it worth investigating?”. The study should be understood in a broader context. Research can be important/relevant/original if, for example, it could significantly supplement a conventional theory or belief, with a new methodology, or new research material that indicates new trends in the development of education/psychology studies, etc.);

Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied;

Insufficient literature review (in particular, a list of names of researchers is provided without explaining the specific contribution of each of them to the development of the problem under study, or the article does not analyze the history of the problem under study);

Poorly formulated research goal (formulation as “the purpose of the article is analysis…” is not correct: analysis cannot be a goal, since analysis is a method for achieving the goal. The goal implies the result, and the analysis implies the process. If the purpose is analysis, this means that the analysis is carried out for the sake of analysis, and this may be evidence of the absence of the subject of research, and the manuscript may be rejected. Analysis can be a goal only if the analysis itself is the subject of scientific research introduced as a new investigation method and justified by the author);

Studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new material for analysis;

Mismatch with the formal requirements for manuscripts.

By having this initial screening in place, it can enable a quick decision if the manuscript isn’t suitable for the journal. This means author can submit his article to another journal quickly. Duration of pre-evaluation process is 15 days.

Back to top ↑


All materials not rejected as a result of pre-evaluation are sent to two peer reviewers for mandatory independent scientific examination. The peer reviewers are invited leading experts in the field close to the subject matter of the presented material. Qualified specialists of domestic and foreign higher educational establishments and scientific organizations may act as peer reviewers. The reviewing process usually lasts from two up to four months. After the manuscript has been reviewed, the editorial board will inform the author(s) about a 'blind' referee’s decision by sending a reviewer’s form via e-mail. 

Reviewers must adhere to international best peer review practices, including the Guidelines for Reviewers from The European Association of Science Editors (EASE)Web of Science Academy, and the requirements of this journal.

Reviewers should alert the editor and/or editors to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest he/she may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists. They must also adhere to the principle of confidentiality when working with the manuscript of the article, in particular not to disclose information about the editorial request to review. The editorial board of the journal is obliged to ensure that peer reviewers maintain in confidence all information about the manuscript submitted for scientific review. The peer reviewer is not allowed to discuss the manuscript with any third parties. Prior to the publication of the materials, peer reviewers are not entitled to use or refer to peer-reviewed materials.

The scientific review of manuscripts must lead to reasoned responses of peer reviewers to the following questions: 

• Is the article innovative and original?

• Does the title and summary of the article correspond to its content?

• Are keywords specific to expressing the article content?

• Does the article’s composition reflect the purpose of the study, the main theses, conclusions?

• Are the stages of description, analysis and interpretation upheld?

• Are there any signs of incorrect borrowing or other forms of violation of the principles of scientific ethics by the author?

• Is the methodology consistent with the goal?

• Does the language of the article meet the norms of scientific style?

• Are scientific sources sufficiently used, and citation is appropriate and necessary?

• Are the conclusions reasoned enough?

The peer review is a questionnaire form approved by the editorial board of the journal, suggesting answers to the stated questions and a detailed summary at the end with arguments for scientific novelty and the practical significance of the material.

If the reviewers chose the answers “no” or “not as such” for any point, they should write reasons and explain to the authors how to improve the article.

Editors mediate all discussions between authors and reviewers during the review of an article prior to publication. If an agreement cannot be reached, the editors may invite additional reviewers.

The executive editor has the right to return the review for revision if the reviewer did not comply with the requirements established by the recommendations for reviewers, if the review contains ambiguous remarks or does not contain comments/recommendations for improving the article in case of answers “no” or “not as such” to the questions posed in the review form. In case of significant remarks to the reviewer, the editor has the right to exclude the reviewer from the list of persons to whom the publication addresses, and/or to inform his/her affiliation about his/her actions.

Reviewers are not supposed to provide structural or stylistic editing of the manuscript. If necessary, they should report the editors about it in the appropriate block of the review form.

Back to top ↑


Based on the results of the scientific peer review, the peer reviewer shall provide one of the following recommendations:

1) the material is recommended for publication in the introduced form (without comments);

2) the material is recommended for publication with a possible (at the discretion of the author) consideration of feedback of peer reviewers;

3) the material is recommended for publication subject to the comments made by peer reviewers have been dealt with by the author;

4) the material is not recommended for publication.

If the article can be accepted but requires revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors’ recommendations, if any.

The author(s) resubmits a revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers’ comments. The author(s) must highlight all changes in the text of the article.

The Chief Editor directly evaluates the quality of changes or submits the article to the reviewer(s) for re-evaluation. In the case of a second round of review, the reviewer may be asked to evaluate a revised version of the manuscript in light of the reviewer’s recommendations made during the first round of review.

Reviewers should clearly and reasonedly express their point of view, and be polite and constructive in their recommendations.

The author must respond to all comments of the reviewer following the points of the review.

The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of manuscript review.

The Editorial Board take into account the comments of the reviewers, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the Chief Editor of the journal.

Based on the results of the peer review a list of comments and suggestions of the peer reviewers is sent to the author with a recommendation to take them into account when finalizing the material and determining the conditions of publication (if any) of the material. In the case of the author’s disagreement with the opinion of the peer reviewers, an additional review is appointed, which considers the opinions of all members of the editorial board.

The following articles are not allowed to be published in the journal:

• articles that have been earlier published in other publications;

• articles whose authors refuse to make technical follow-on revision of their articles;

• articles whose authors neither follow peer reviewer’s comments or reasonably dismiss them;

• resubmitted manuscripts that were rejected before.

Back to top ↑


In scientific journals, refusal to publish an article is a common phenomenon, caused by many reasons. The specifics of the review process often aroused the interest of researchers, becoming the original subject of research. Scientific articles devoted to the study of the review policy in the world's leading scientific journals, particularly the analysis of the grounds for rejecting manuscripts, thoroughly comprehend and summarize the vast experience of editorial work. When determining the policy of reviewing manuscripts, the editorial board of the journal uses the world academic experience of reviewing. The main definitions of the reason for refusal of publication by researchers, as well as a list of scientific materials in which these reasons are analyzed are given below.

Lack of originality, novelty, or significance

• Results that are not generalizable

• Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new technologies or techniques

• Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge

• Studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population, or cultural setting

• Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or trivial

• Results that have no theoretical, or practical implications

Mismatch with the journal

• Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or specialized audience that the journal does not cater to specifically

• Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal

• Topics that are not of interest to the journal's readership

• Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal (e.g., case report submitted to a journal that explicitly states it doesn't publish case reports)

Flaws in study design

• Poorly formulated research question

• Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research question

• Choice of a weak or unreliable method

• Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studied

• Inappropriate statistical analysis

• Unreliable or incomplete data

• Small or inappropriately chosen sample

Poor Writing and Organization

• Inadequate description of methods

• Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them

• Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study

• Insufficient literature review

• Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data

• Failure to place the study in a broad context

• Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied

Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

• Failure to follow the journal's Instructions for Authors

• Sentences that are not clear and concise

• Title, abstract, and/or cover letter that are not persuasive

• Wordiness and excessive use of jargon

• Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes

• Poorly designed tables or figures


Adib, S., Nimehchisalem, V. (2021). Reasons for Manuscript Rejection at Internal and Peer-review Stages (:// International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies (IJELS), Volume 9, Issue 3, pp. 2-8. DOI: ://

Ajao, O.G. (2005). Some reasons for manuscript rejection by peer-reviewed journals (:// Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 9-12.

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports ( Academic Medicine, Volume 76, Issue 9, pp. 889-896.

Byrne, D.W. (2000). Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers (:// Science Editor, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp. 39-44.

Coronel, R., Opthof, T. (1999). The role of the reviewer in editorial decision-making (:// Cardiovascular Research, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp. 261–264. DOI: ://

Ehara, Sh., Takahashi, K. (2007). Reasons for Rejection of Manuscripts Submitted to AJR by International Authors (:// American Journal of Raentgenology, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp. W113-W116. DOI: ://

Mcafee, R.P. (2010). Edifying Editing (:// The American Economist, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp. 1-8. DOI: ://

McKercher, B., Law, R., Weber, K., Song, H., Hsu, C. (2007). Why referees reject manuscripts (:// Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 455-470. DOI: ://

Pierson, D.J. (2004). The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication (:// Respiratory Care, Volume 49, Issue 10, pp. 1246-1252.

Smith, M.U., Wandersee, J.H., Cummins, C.L. (1993). What's wrong with this manuscript?: An analysis of the reasons for rejection given by Journal of Research in Science Teaching reviewers (:// Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp. 209-211. DOI: ://

Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M (2004). Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal (:// Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp. 549-556. DOI: ://

Back to top ↑


The EASE (The European Association of Science Editors) Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English were developed in 2010 and updated and extended regularly until 2020. Their purpose was to provide simple, clear advice aimed at making international scientific communication more efficient. They also drew attention to ethical issues such as authorship criteria, plagiarism, conflict of interests and more.

The recommendations for authors to write an article, as well as publishing and communicating with reviewers, developed by Barbara Gastel and Robert A. Day in their book How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper are very useful too.

Back to top ↑


During the review of complaints and appeals, the journal editors follow the relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (СОРЕ) rules.

Review Process

In case of filed complaints and/or appeals against editorial decisions, the following review procedure is applied:

• Any complaint or appeal is first reviewed by the editor-in-chief who is responsible for the journal and/or the editor-in-chief who was directly involved in the editorial process.

• The editor-in-chief of the publication may enlist in the review two members of the editorial board who have relevant experience of participating in the editorial boards of other publications and with their experience and knowledge can help in the settlement of the dispute and the proper clarification of the circumstances described in the appeal, as well as the proper application of the editorial policy and rules of publication ethics of the Journal.

• If the participation of the specified editorial board or directly their conduct is the object of the appeal, the complainant should contact the Editorial Council of Alfred Nobel University This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. The complaint is considered at a meeting of the Editorial Council of the University with the participation of Chief Editor and Executive Editor of the journal.

When considering complaints and/or appeals, the following rules must be observed:

• mutual respect for all participants in the editorial process, the presumption of their proper and conscientious behavior until proven otherwise;

• granting all interested persons the right to present their arguments in support or opposition to the stated requirements;

• proper notification of the participants of the editorial process regarding the receipt and consideration of such an appeal, in which their rights and/or interests may be affected;

• directing the process of resolution of any dispute through the search for compromise and mutual understanding.

A complaint about the scientific quality of an article, such as an appeal concerning the rejection of the article

In the appeal, the author must provide a detailed justification including responses to the reviewers' remarks by points.

Chief Editor considers the arguments of authors and reviewers and makes one of the following decisions:

• reject the application due to the groundlessness of the requirements outlined in the appeal;

• satisfy the claims stated in the application;

• to apply to the Editorial Council of Alfred Nobel University to consider the appeal due to the impossibility of making a final decision in the editorial office.

The complainant is notified of the decision with an explanation. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions have priority over appeals.

Complaint regarding the peer review (review time, etc.)

Chief Editor, together with the Executive Editor and the management of the Editorial Council of Alfred Nobel University is investigating the case. The complainant will be provided with a response. The results of the case review will be considered by relevant stakeholders to improve editorial and publishing processes.

Complaint about publication ethics, for example, about the behavior of the author or reviewer

Chief Editor or Executive Editor must follow Committee on Publication Ethics COPE, The European Association of Science Editors EASE recommendations and journal publication ethics guidelines. Chief Editor or Executive Editor may consult Editorial Council of Alfred Nobel University regarding complex cases.

The final decision on rejection of the complaint / appeal cannot be challenged. The editors will not communicate with the authors of the rejected manuscript after such a decision.

Back to top ↑