All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the Journal Linguistic and Conceptual Worldviews are reviewed in the following order:

1. Manuscripts of articles submitted to the Editorial Board of the Journal are preliminarily screened for compliance with the formal requirements (scope of the Journal, structure, formatting guidelines, abstracts and keywords as required, list of references, author(s) details, author(s) publishing agreement, etc.). In addition, a manuscript is checked for dishonest borrowing of someone else’s research materials.

The Editorial Board notifies by e-mail the author(s) about the receipt of the article, the preliminary screening results and the article submission to independent reviewers. 

The Editorial Board rejects the publication in case of non-fulfillment of formal article requirements.

2. All preliminarily screened articles are assigned to two peer reviewers who carry out their duties in a timely and unbiased manner. Expert evaluation is based on the principle of double-blind peer review. Reviewers are specialists in the field and have in the last five years published articles in editions indexed by Scopus, Web of Science and others, the Register of Scientific Professional Journals of Ukraine.

3. The scholarly review of a manuscript is to provide peer reviewers’ comprehensive answers to the following questions: Is the article appropriate to the Journal’s scope? Does the content of the article respond to the topic stated in the title? Does the article contain scientific and information novelty? Does the article have theoretical significance and practical value? Does the article comply with the submission requirements? And so on. 

A review is a questionnaire form approved by the Editorial Board that provides answers to the above questions and gives an extended conclusion that proves scientific novelty and practical importance of the material. 

Form of Review (.docx)

4. In conformity with the scholarly review results, the reviewer provides one the recommendations listed below:

1) the article is recommended for publication (without comments);

2) the article is recommended for publication with possible (at the author’s discretion) consideration of the reviewers’ comments;

3) the article is recommended for publication only if the reviewers’ comments have been considered by the author;

4) the article is not recommended for publication.

5. If there one review is positive and the other is negative, the Executive Editor assigns an additional Reviewer, whose review informs the Editor’s final decision. 

6. The finished review send to the Editorial Board by e-mail.

The review period is 10-15 days.

The Editorial Board notifies by e-mail the author(s) about the double-blind peer review results.