General regulations

The peer review process at The Ukrainian Biochemical Journal (UBJ) is guided by the principles of academic integrity, Elsevier’s publishing ethics, and the recommendations of COPE and WAME, which emphasize impartiality, confidentiality, the responsibilities of reviewers and editors, the commitment to scientific integrity, and the prevention of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts submitted are the private intellectual property of the authors and are considered confidential information that must not be disclosed or used for personal advantage.
Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory in nature and do not, by themselves, determine the editorial decision.
If author disagree with a reviewer’s comments, they have the right to submit a reasoned response to the Editorial Board.
The final decision on the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor, taking into account the reviewers’ comments. In cases of disagreement, the decision may be referred to the Editorial Board.

Reviewing procedure

• Manuscript submission. Manuscripts are submitted online via the COMET system. During submission, you will upload three files (the manuscript, the License Agreement, and the Conflict of Interest form).
• Initial assessment. After submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to ensure that it is within the journal’s scope, aligns with formatting requirements, and adheres to the principles of publication ethics and academic integrity. At this stage, all manuscripts are checked for originality using the StrikePlagiarism system, for approval by the relevant ethics committees and compliance with international ethical standards for research involving humans and animals. Only manuscripts that successfully pass the initial assessment are sent for peer review.
• Reviewer assignment. The journal’s scientific editors assign reviewers based on the manuscript’s subject area and reviewers’ scientific expertise.
• Type of review and number of reviewers. Manuscripts submitted to UBJ undergo anonymous (single-blind) peer review by two independentexperts in the relevant field. Authors do not know who will review their work, while reviewers have access to information about the authors and their affiliations. Authors may suggest independent reviewers for their work, and the Editorial Board will consider such requests; however, it reserves the right to select reviewers who can provide the most thorough and objective analysis.
• Acceptance criteria and review timelines. During the review process, manuscripts are evaluated for scientific novelty, methodological quality, reliability of the results, consistency of the conclusions with the data presented, relevance of the topic, and clarity of the presentation. Reviewers are given three weeks to submit their reports.
• Conflicts of interest for reviewers. Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline to review manuscripts if such conflicts could affect their objectivity.
• Revision of manuscript. If a manuscript requires major revisions, the authors are given three weeks to make changes, after which the revised version is sent for an additional round of peer review.
• Editorial decision. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the manuscript may be accepted for publication, returned to the authors for revision, or rejected.
• Production stage. Accepted manuscripts are forwarded to the editorial office for publication preparation.