Ethics and policies

PEER REVIEW POLICY FOR ARTICLES

Peer review is a mandatory element of the journal’s editorial process and is carried out to ensure scientific quality, academic integrity, validity of research results, and compliance of manuscripts with the journal’s scope.

All manuscripts that have passed the initial editorial screening and meet the journal’s basic formal and content requirements are subject to peer review.

The peer review procedure is based on the following principles:

  • scientific rigor and professional competence of assessment;

  • objectivity and impartiality;

  • confidentiality;

  • constructiveness of comments;

  • adherence to academic integrity and publication ethics.

Peer review is not a formal procedure for approving a manuscript for publication. Its purpose is to provide an independent expert assessment of the scientific value of the material, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, and give the editorial board grounds for making an informed decision on the possibility of publication.

The editorial board views peer review as a tool for ensuring the quality of scientific communication, not merely as a technical stage of the editorial process.

Manuscript Review Procedure at the Journal “Industriya Mody. Fashion Industry”

Analysis (expert assessment) of scientific article manuscripts is carried out to maintain the high scientific standard of the journal “Industriya Mody. Fashion Industry” and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific articles.

The journal “Industriya Mody. Fashion Industry” uses Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author(s);

  • the author(s) do not know the personal details of the reviewer.

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial board undergo an initial check for completeness and correctness of registration and compliance with the manuscript requirements published on the website.

The initial expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Managing Editor.

After a manuscript is received by the editorial board, a preliminary editorial review (desk review) is conducted. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the submitted material meets the journal’s basic requirements before it is sent for peer review. At this stage, the editorial board checks:

  • compliance of the manuscript with the journal’s thematic scope and scientific focus;

  • correspondence of the title to the content of the article;

  • presence of a clearly formulated scientific problem;

  • relevance and scientific novelty of the research;

  • soundness of the aim, tasks, and methodology;

  • sufficiency and logical presentation of the results;

  • correspondence of the conclusions to the obtained results;

  • presence and correctness of references to contemporary scientific sources;

  • compliance with formatting and structural requirements for the article;

  • adherence to academic integrity principles, in particular the absence of plagiarism.

Manuscripts that do not meet the specified criteria may be rejected at the desk review stage without being sent for peer review.

Typical grounds for rejection at this stage include:

  • mismatch with the journal’s scope;

  • lack of scientific novelty or a research problem;

  • descriptive or compilation nature of the material without its own scientific contribution;

  • insufficiently justified methodology or lack of a methodological approach;

  • conclusions that do not correspond to the presented results;

  • significant violations of structural or formatting requirements;

  • detected signs of academic misconduct.

The Editor‑in‑Chief (or Managing Editor) appoints a reviewer from among the Editorial Board members who specialises in the relevant scientific field for the publication of the article.

If no Editorial Board member is available to act as curator for the relevant field, the Editor‑in‑Chief (Managing Editor) appoints an external reviewer for the submitted article.

Before appointing a reviewer, the editorial board checks for any potential conflict of interest. A reviewer has the right to decline to review if:

  • the subject matter of the manuscript falls outside their area of competence;

  • a conflict of interest exists;

  • they are unable to complete the review within the established timeframe.

Peer review is conducted in the form of an independent expert assessment of the scientific content of the manuscript.

Reviewers analyse the submitted material and provide reasoned conclusions and recommendations on whether it can be published.

The review must be:

  • objective and impartial;

  • well‑argued;

  • constructive;

  • aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.

Personal criticism of the author is inadmissible.

The manuscript is assessed according to the following main criteria:

  • compliance with the journal’s thematic scope;

  • presence of a clearly formulated scientific problem;

  • relevance and scientific novelty of the research;

  • soundness and adequacy of the methodology;

  • logical structure of the research;

  • reliability and completeness of the presented results;

  • correspondence of conclusions to the obtained results;

  • level of engagement with contemporary scientific sources;

  • scientific contribution to the development of the relevant field;

  • quality of academic writing and text formatting.

Reviewers (both Editorial Board members and external reviewers) must be recognised specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and must have at least one publication in the last three years in journals included in the List, or in foreign journals included in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus, or have monographs or book chapters published by international publishers belonging to categories “A”, “B”, or “C” according to the classification of the Research School for Socio‑Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).

After the expert assessment of the scientific article, the reviewer may:

  • recommend the article for publication;

  • recommend the article for publication after the author makes corrections taking into account the expressed comments and suggestions;

  • not recommend the article for publication.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after the author corrects the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision.

The editor recommends using the standard review form developed (download here).

When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers must:

  • pay particular attention to the relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;

  • characterise the theoretical and applied value of the research conducted;

  • assess the correctness of mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;

  • assess how the author’s conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;

  • check the authors’ compliance with the rules of scientific ethics and the correctness of references to literary sources.

A necessary element of the review is the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem.

It is advisable to note in the reviews the style, logic, and accessibility of the scientific presentation, as well as to draw conclusions about the authenticity and validity of the conclusions of the author(s) of the article.

Scientific articles may be sent for further review if:

  • the reviewer’s expert qualifications are insufficient regarding the issues addressed in the scientific article;

  • the initial expert opinion is of insufficiently high quality;

  • there is a sharp contradiction with the provisions set out in the scientific article.

The completed review is sent by the reviewer to the editor by email as a scanned copy.

The editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the authors (without disclosing the reviewer’s identity) or a reasoned refusal from the editorial board regarding the impossibility of publishing that particular manuscript.

The final decision on whether to publish a manuscript is made by the editorial board based on the results of the peer review and taking into account the scientific quality of the material.

The editorial board may take one of the following decisions:

  • accept the manuscript for publication;

  • accept after revision;

  • send for re‑review;

  • reject the manuscript.

The editorial board is not obliged to automatically agree with the reviewers’ recommendations. If necessary, a decision may be taken that differs from the reviewers’ conclusions, provided it is justified by scientific considerations.

In the event of conflicting reviews, the editorial board may:

  • engage an additional reviewer;

  • conduct additional editorial analysis;

  • make a decision based on a cumulative assessment.

Editorial decisions are final.

If reviewers’ comments are received, authors are obliged to revise the manuscript taking into account the recommendations provided.

Together with the revised manuscript, authors must provide a response to the reviewers, in which they:

  • explain the changes made;

  • justify any disagreement with particular comments.

An author has the right to disagree with a reviewer’s recommendations, provided that a clear scientific justification is given.

In the case of substantial changes, the manuscript may be sent for re‑review.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the established timeframe or ignoring substantial comments may be grounds for rejection.

Additionally, scientific publications are checked for uniqueness using appropriate software.