Editorial Policies

“Herald of the Ukrainian Pancreatic Club” publishes materials of a great scientific, theoretical and practical importance which are prepared at a high scientific level as the result of research.

Editorial policy of “Herald of the Ukrainian Pancreatic Club” is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Ukrainian Research Ethics Code.

  1. Publishing Ethics

1.1. Reputable scientists and practitioners majoring in certain topics participate in reviewing.

1.2. Articles submitted for publication pass through a double-blind peer review and plagiarism check.

1.3. Research papers prepared in full compliance with the requirements for the structure of papers submitted by the authors to periodicals are allowed to be reviewed. To determine the degree of compliance with the specified requirements, all articles and supplementary materials of the authors undergo initial check. If there are any comments at this stage, the article and supplementary materials are returned to the author to correct the identified gaps.

1.4. The peer review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors; it is carried out by two reviewers. For reviewing, the coded paper is submitted to the reviewer, who is the leading expert on the topic of this paper.

1.5. The reviewer who received the coded paper fills out a standard form and chooses one of the recommendation options – recommended for publication; revision recommended; not recommended for publication.

1.6. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts submitted to them are the intellectual property of the authors and the information contained in the manuscript is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to use these papers in their own interests prior to their publication.

1.7. In case of a negative conclusion (no recommendation for publication or need to revise the paper), the reviewer must provide a written explanation of the reasons for such a decision.

1.8. Further work on the paper accepted for publication is carried out by the means of the department responsible for the formation of the periodical publication in accordance with the technological process of preparing the journal.

1.9. The decision of the working group of the editorial board is communicated to the author(s) of the article. In case of need for revision, the text of the review is also sent to the author(s), containing recommendations for revising the article. The anonymity of the reviewers is guaranteed by the editorial board of the journal.

1.10. The revised version of the manuscript is submitted for review. In case of a repeated negative opinion of the reviewer, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

1.11. The editors do not enter into discussion with the authors of the rejected manuscripts.

  1. Ethical Duties of Authors

2.1. The author is fully responsible for the content of the manuscript.

2.2. The author must properly cite the sources used in the paper, if the data were not obtained by the author him/herself.

2.3. Plagiarism is prohibited.

2.4. The co-authors of the article should be those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the presented paper and who share responsibility for the results obtained.

  1. Ethical Duties of Reviewers

3.1. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical parts, interpretation and presentation, and also take into account whether the paper meets high scientific and literary standards.

3.2. The reviewer must adequately explain and reason his/her judgments so that the members of the editorial board and the author(s) can understand what these comments are based on.

3.3. The reviewer is obliged to provide feedback in a timely manner.