Review process

The journal "Modern Historical and Political Issues" ensures the quality and integrity of published research through a rigorous peer-review system. All manuscripts are handled in strict accordance with our Publication Ethics and the standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer Review Workflow

We employ a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure maximum objectivity. Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities throughout the evaluation.

Step 1: Initial Manuscript Check (Desk Triage). Within two weeks of submission, the Editorial Board conducts a preliminary assessment. Manuscripts are checked for formatting, scope, and adherence to the journal's Publication Ethics. If a manuscript does not meet these requirements, it is returned to the author without further review.

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment. The Editor-in-Chief assigns at least two external reviewers with the appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the assignment, in accordance with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

Step 3: Evaluation. Reviewers are typically given 4 to 8 weeks to provide a thorough and objective assessment. They evaluate the manuscript based on technical rigour, originality, methodological correctness, and theoretical contribution using a standardized Review Form (view).

Step 4: Revision Process. If revisions are recommended, authors must address all comments and resubmit the revised text along with a cover letter detailing the specific changes made.

Step 5: Final Editorial Decision. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports.

The possible outcomes are:

Accept, as is;

Accept with minor revisions;

Major revision (requires a second round of review);

Reject.

Guidance for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold the responsibilities outlined in our Publication Ethics, including:

Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively and formulated politely, backed by clear supporting arguments.

Timeliness: Evaluations should be completed within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they must inform the editorial office immediately.

Integrity: Reviewers must alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or ethical concerns (the journal follows COPE flowcharts for such cases).

Disagreements and Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection if they believe the decision was based on a factual error or evidence of bias.

For detailed information on our procedures, please refer to the Complaints and Appeals page.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to mhpi@chnu.edu.ua, accompanied by a reasoned response.

Decisions regarding appeals on retractions and expressions of concern are final.