Criteria for the Selection of Reviewers
of the Scientific Journal “Demography and Social Economy”

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal “Demography and Social Economy” places particular emphasis on the selection of reviewers, as the quality of peer review directly affects the scientific standard and reputation of the journal. Reviewers are selected based on the principles of professionalism, independence, impartiality, and adherence to ethical standards of scholarly activity.

Reviewers are chosen from among experts who possess appropriate academic qualifications and expertise in the relevant field of knowledge, particularly in demography, social economics, or related disciplines. Preference is given to scholars who hold an academic degree, have recent publications in peer-reviewed journals, and possess research experience closely related to the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

An important criterion is the scientific activity and reputation of the potential reviewer, including participation in international or national research projects, publication activity in journals indexed in recognized scientometric databases, and prior peer-review experience. The Editorial Board also considers the reviewer’s ability to provide a high-quality, well-reasoned, and constructive expert evaluation within the established timeframes.

A mandatory condition for participation in the review process is the absence of any conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of the assessment. In the event of a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the Editorial Board and decline the review assignment.

The Editorial Board adheres to the principle of confidentiality and ensures the anonymity of the peer-review process in accordance with the chosen model (in particular, double-blind peer review). Reviewers are required to guarantee the non-disclosure of any information related to the manuscript and must not use the received materials for personal purposes.

In selecting reviewers, the Editorial Board seeks to uphold academic integrity, diversity of scholarly approaches, and geographical representation, thereby enhancing the quality of expert evaluation and supporting the journal’s integration into the international academic community.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to update the pool of reviewers and the criteria for their selection in accordance with evolving scientific standards and the requirements of international publication ethics.

---

Peer Review Procedure

I. All scientific articles submitted to the journal are subject to peer review by highly qualified experts in the relevant fields. Reviewers are required to hold a doctoral or кандидат наук (PhD-equivalent) degree and to have research and publications in the relevant specialty and subject area.

If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may additionally involve experts in the relevant field in cases where reviewers’ opinions differ. In such situations, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer and further considered at a meeting of the Editorial Board.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and/or Executive Secretary within 2–3 working days from the date of manuscript submission. The technical secretary sends the manuscript and the review form to reviewers via the OJS system.

II. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript within 10–12 working days from the date of receipt and submit their review to the Editorial Board through their personal account on the journal’s website: https://ojs.dse.org.ua. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they must provide a reasoned refusal within three days of receiving the invitation. The review timeline in each case is determined with a view to ensuring prompt publication but shall not exceed two weeks.

III. The review must clearly assess the theoretical or applied significance of the study and evaluate the consistency between the article’s title, objectives, and conclusions in relation to existing scientific concepts. An essential component of the review is the assessment of the author’s personal contribution to addressing the research problem, as well as the relevance and novelty of the study.

The reviewer should also comment on the clarity, logic, and academic style of the manuscript, the completeness of topic disclosure in the article and extended abstract, the validity and substantiation of the conclusions, the adequacy and relevance of citations, and adherence to academic ethics, including the absence of plagiarism. The reviewer’s conclusion, prepared in accordance with the journal’s template, must be submitted via the personal account on the journal’s website.

IV. If the review contains comments and recommendations, the manuscript, together with an anonymized copy of the review, is sent to the authors for revision. During revision, authors must clearly indicate all changes made in the manuscript (including modified text, added sentences, tables, figures, or other materials) to facilitate efficient re-evaluation by the reviewer.

V. After revision by the author(s), the manuscript is returned to the reviewer via the OJS system for verification of the changes and additions. The reviewer is expected to assess the revised manuscript within 5–7 working days.

VI. Upon receiving positive recommendations from reviewers regarding the suitability of the revised manuscript for publication, the article proceeds to the editorial production stage. This includes literary editing, editing of the English abstract, and incorporation of final agreed revisions by the author. At this stage, authors are required to carefully address editorial and proofreading comments within the specified deadlines.

VII. Electronic versions of reviews are stored in the OJS system. Printed copies of electronic reviews are archived in the editorial office for two years.

VIII. If a manuscript contains a substantial number of critical comments but receives an overall positive recommendation, the Editorial Board may classify it as a discussion paper and publish it under the heading “Scientific Discussion”.

IX. The Editorial Board makes the final decision regarding the composition and publication of journal issues.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to discontinue further consideration of a manuscript at the production stage if the author fails to adequately address editorial and proofreading comments or introduces substantial changes to the content that were not previously reviewed. Such actions may be considered a violation of editorial requirements and may result in rejection of the publication.

Authors have the right to appeal a decision of manuscript rejection by submitting an appeal within 10 calendar days of receiving the decision notification. Appeals are reviewed by an independent member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the initial evaluation of the manuscript. The decision resulting from the appeal review is final.