The Visnyk of the National Bank of Ukraine uses a double-blind peer review to select the most valuable research and ensure the high quality of the journal’s articles.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and provide suggestions to the editor on whether a paper can be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected. 

Before starting working on a referee report, reviewers are recommended to make sure that the article matches their area of expertise and that they can meet the deadline.

While drafting their report and recommendations, our reviewers are asked to: 

• consider priority areas, requirements for authors, and reviewer guidelines of the journal;
• assess whether the title accurately reflects the content;
• assess whether the abstract completely describes the research;
• assess whether the paper is well-structured;
• assess the quality and robustness of the methodology applied, the analysis, the data, the discussion of results, and the conclusion;
• raise suspicions about plagiarism, fraud, or other ethical concerns;
• provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript (accept, accept after minor revision, revise and resubmit, reject);
• provide a detailed, constructive referee report.

Manuscripts submitted to the Visnyk of the National Bank of Ukraine must meet the standards of publication ethics by: 

• presenting results not submitted or published before;
• being original and not reusing text from another source without an appropriate citation.

If reviewers become aware of such scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the editor.
 

All manuscripts that are received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviews should be conducted objectively.

Reviewers should avoid using information obtained in the peer review process for their personal benefit.

Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they feel unable to provide a good review for various reasons (e.g., they have no subject expertise or have no access to required data, etc.).

Reviewers should express their views clearly, objectively, and constructively in their reports. Personal criticism of authors and baseless judgments are inappropriate.

Reviewers have to inform the editors about any plagiarism. Reviewers should indicate published research that the authors did not mention in the manuscript.

Reviewers should declare all potential conflicts of interest.

Reviewers cannot be:

• the heads of organizations, educational institutions, staff from the departments, laboratories, or other subdivisions in which the authors work;
• subordinates or relatives of the authors;
• co-authors of previously published articles and current submissions;
• scientific supervisors of the authors.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and may not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues, or use the information in their own work. Reviewers may not use unpublished materials in their research without the author’s permission.