Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of research papers is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of “Herald of the Ukrainian Pancreatic Club” and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

• “Herald of the Ukrainian Pancreatic Club” uses Double-Blind Peer Review:
• the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author/authors;
• the author/authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
• The research papers submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the journal website.
• The primary expert review of a research paper is carried out by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
• The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) selects the reviewer from the members of the editorial board, who oversees the relevant scientific direction, for the article to be published.
• In absence of the leading expert of the respective field among the members of the editorial board, the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) selects the external reviewer for the provided article.
• Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external ones) should be well-known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript, having publications in the research field (preferably during the last 5 years).
• After an expert evaluation of a research paper, the reviewer may:
• recommend the paper for publication;
• recommend the paper for publication after author’s revision, taking into account the comments and amendments;
• do not recommend the paper for publication.

If the reviewer recommends the paper for publication after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the paper for publication, the review must state the reason for this decision.

Upon reviewing, the editor recommends using the developed standard review form, which is available on the journal website.

• When reviewing research papers, reviewers must:
• pay special attention to the relevance of the research problem raised in the article;
• characterize the theoretical and practical value of the research, correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
• assess how the author’s conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
• evaluate the authors’ adherence to the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to the literary sources.

The crucial element of the review should be the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration.

It is reasonable to note the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific calculations, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author(s) in this paper.

• Research papers may be submitted for further review because of the following reasons:
• insufficient expert qualification in the issues considered in the research paper;
• insufficient level of primary expert judgment;
• acute controversy of the provisions stated in the research paper.
• The review is sent to the editor via e-mail as a scan copy.
• The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the reviewer’s data) or the reasoned rejection of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.