1. General provisions

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo a peer review process. The purpose of the peer review is to evaluate the quality of the manuscripts submitted by the authors. To this end, the editorial board invites professionals to provide reviews and specific recommendations for improving the manuscripts and determining their suitability for publication in the journal. The peer review process aims to provide an objective evaluation of the scientific article's content, ensuring it aligns with the journal's standards, and offers a thorough analysis of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Only manuscripts that are valuable from a scientific point of view and contribute to solving current theoretical and practical issues and tasks are accepted for publication. Compliance with the guidelines for preparing manuscripts is also taken into account.

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Authors entrust the editors with the results of their scientific research and creative efforts, which may be of significant importance to their professional reputation and career. Disclosure of confidential information related to the review process constitutes a violation of the authors’ rights. Editors do not disclose any information concerning a submitted manuscript, including information about its submission, content, peer review process, reviewers' feedback, and the final decision, to anyone other then the authors and the reviewers involved. Confidentiality may be breached only in cases involving allegations of inaccuracy, misconduct, or falsification of materials. In all other circumstances, strict confidentiality must be maintained.

2. Peer review process

1. The author submits a manuscript to the editorial office in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and manuscript preparation guidelines. Manuscripts that fail to comply with the established requirements are not registered or considered for further review, and the authors are duly notified. The responsible secretary registers compliant submissions in the manuscript log, recording the date of receipt, the title of the article, and the full name(s) and institutional affiliation(s) of the author(s). Each manuscript is assigned a unique registration number.
2. The executive secretary conducts a preliminary evaluation of submitted manuscripts to determine whether their content aligns with the journal’s scope and subject area. Following this assessment, the executive secretary assigns the manuscript to reviewers, who may include members of the editorial board, section editors, or external subject-matter experts, and forwards the manuscript for peer review.
3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board undergo review by two or, if necessary, more additional reviewers selected in accordance with the research profile. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal appoints reviewers. Under certain circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may entrust the appointment of reviewers to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at an editorial board meeting. The Editor-in-Chief may exempt individual articles by prominent scientists, as well as articles written by authors specially invited by the editorial board, from the standard review procedure.
4. Reviewers may be members of the journal's editorial board or external, highly qualified professionals with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field. Typically, they are doctors of sciences or professors.
5. After receiving an article for consideration, the reviewer assesses his or her own ability to review the materials based on how well his or her qualifications correspond to the author's research area and whether there is any conflict of interest. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest, they should decline the review and notify the editorial board. In this case, the editorial board appoints another reviewer.
6. Typically, the reviewer makes a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article within 14 days. The review period may vary in each case, depending on the time required for an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials, but it should not exceed one calendar month.
7. Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind review. This means that the reviewer does not have information about the author(s) of the manuscript, and the author(s) do not have information about the reviewer. Interaction between authors and reviewers occurs through the journal's executive secretary. At the reviewer's request and with the editorial board working group's agreement, interaction between the author and reviewer may occur in an open mode. This decision is made only if openness will improve the presentation of the research material's style and logic.
8. The level of uniqueness of all submitted manuscripts is determined using appropriate software that shows the level of uniqueness, sources, and the proportion of text overlap (StrikePlagiarism).
9. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standard article evaluation form (Review Form) and makes final recommendations on the possibility of publishing the manuscript. The editorial board notifies authors of the results of the review via letter or email.
10. If the reviewer indicates that changes or corrections are needed, the article is sent back to the author. The author can then either take the comments into account when finalizing the manuscript or refute them with arguments. The author included a letter with the revised article that contains responses to all comments and explanations of all changes made to the manuscript. The corrected version is resubmitted to the reviewer, who make a decision and provide a reasoned conclusion on publication. The date the editorial board accepts the manuscript for publication is when it receives a positive review or editorial board decision on the manuscript's publication feasibility.
11. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal's editorial office. The article will then be considered at a meeting of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article to another professional for a new or additional review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unwilling or unable to consider the reviewers' suggestions. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may provide the article to another reviewer, as long as the principles of anonymous review are followed.
12. The Editor-in-Chief (or a member of the editorial board on his behalf) makes the final decision on whether or not to publish, and if necessary, the entire editorial board will convene to make this decision. Once the decision to publish the manuscript has been made, the executive secretary will inform the author and provide an expected publication date.
13. If the decision to publish is positive, then the article is submitted to the journal's editorial portfolio.
14. The Academic Council of the Institute of Molecular Biology and Genetics of the NAS of Ukraine makes the final decision on the content and printing of the forthcoming issue of the journal with a corresponding entry in the minutes of the meeting, which is noted on the second page of the journal cover.
15. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. The technical editor can make minor stylistic or formal corrections to an article without consulting the author, as long as these corrections do not affect the content. The manuscript is sent to the author for final approval in the form of a layout of the article.
16. The author of the article is responsible for any copyright violations or noncompliance with existing standards within the article's content. Both the author and the reviewer are responsible for ensuring the reliability of the facts and data provided, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, and the article's scientific and practical quality.

3. Reviewer roles and responsibilities

The reviewer provides a written review of the manuscript. Based on an analysis of the material's readiness, the reviewer concludes whether or not the article is ready for publication.

If the reviewer recommends publishing the article after revisions are made, or if they do not recommend publishing the article, they must explain their decision in the review.

The reviewer must review the submitted article within the agreed-upon timeframe and send a reasoned refusal or a review to the editorial office via email.

The reviewer assesses the theoretical and methodological quality of the article, as well as its scientific and practical value. Additionally, the reviewer establishes whether the article adheres to the ethical principles of scientific publications, offering recommendations for addressing any violations.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts they are reviewing are the intellectual property of the authors and must be treated as confidential information.

Reviewers are not permitted to make copies of the manuscripts they have been asked to review, nor are they permitted to use any of the information they contain prior to publication.

The review process is conducted in confidence, meaning that information about the manuscript (e.g. time of receipt, content, stages and features of the review, reviewers' comments, and the final publication decision) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is only permitted if there is evidence that the content of the article is unreliable or has been falsified.

4. Author roles and responsibilities

The author of the reviewed work has the right to familiarise themselves with the review text, especially if the reviewer recommends that the manuscript cannot be published in its current form.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, they have the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal's editorial office. The manuscript may then be sent for re-review or approval by the editorial board.

Following the review, the author(s) must respond to the reviewer's recommendations and comments and provide a corrected version of the manuscript within two weeks. If the article is submitted later, the date of its publication is changed accordingly.

The responsible secretary will inform the author of the publication date no later than one month after receiving a positive decision on publication of the manuscript.