1. Skip to Menu
  2. Skip to Content
  3. Skip to Footer

Reviewing and adhering to editorial ethics
Qualitative independent review of materials submitted for publication is carried out by scientists who have, for the last three years, at least one publication in the periodicals included in the List of the Ministry of Education of Ukraine or foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Digest and / or Scopus, or have monographs or sections of monographs published by international publishing houses classified as "A", "B" or "C" according to the classification of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
Reviews signed by the reviewer must be kept in the editorial office for at least three years.
In the review, the reviewer notes the nature of the article (the results of their own research, scientific methodological or survey), its main characteristics, observations and recommendations. The reviewer may use a partially formalized review form developed by our editorial board.

REVIEW

Article title (registration number):________________________________________________.
_____________________________________________________________________________.
_____________________________________________________________________________.
General characteristics of work
The nature of the work: contains new scientific results / scientific methodical / survey
Scope of work:
- related - not related to military medicine;
- actual - is not relevant for the medical service of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Structural-logical scheme of work: good - poor.
The purpose of the study: achieved, achieved insufficiently, not achieved.
Literature review: thoroughly, superficially; recent / outdated references.
Methods of research: up-to-date, routine, complex, extraordinary methods, others____________________________________________________________________________
Own research: sufficient / insufficient.
Methods of statistical processing: up-to-date methods of variation statistics, statistical probability calculated / not calculated, statistical processing was not carried out, other _____________________________________________________________________________
Conclusions:
- substantiated, substantiated insufficient, not substantiated;
- responsible - do not meet the purpose and objectives of the study.
Practical recommendations: expedient / not applicable.
The work is illustrated: tables, drawings, schemes, illustrative material is absent.
Design work: meets requirements - meets requirements, but negligent - at all does not meet requirements.

Remarks and recommendations by the reviewer


Remarks / Recommendations

Correction of comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion.
The article complies with the requirements of the journal and may be accepted for publication in
represented form; can be published after corrections.
The article does not meet the requirements of the journal and must be rejected.

Reviewer: _________________________________________________________ (Name)
position__________________________________________________________________
code of scientific specialty ___________________________________________________.
Scientific degree ________ Scientific title _______________ Military rank ____________.

 

<