«Морфологія / Morphologia» operates a double-anonymized peer-review system, ensuring that reviewers' identities remain anonymous in the reports provided to authors. Each manuscript is evaluated by two or more  independent reviewers. The review procedure is carried out based on the practical recommendations of the EASE Peer Review Toolkit.

The author places the manuscript and information about its authors in the electronic database of the Journal. The Editorial Office evaluates the manuscript from the point of view of its compliance with the subject area and the rewuirements for the design of the articles (view), checks the text of the article for plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet the criteria of academic integrity and the requirements for the design of the Journal’s articles, are rejected at this stage.

The Editor-in-Chief and/or the members of the Editorial Board prepare a preliminary conclusion with an assessment of the manuscript in terms of its compliance with scientific criteria, determine the scientific field (section) to which the content of the manuscript corresponds and identify two external reviewers for a double anonymized review. The choice of a reviewer is based on the relevance of the manuscript topic to their scientific interests, passions and publications, experience, reputation, etc.

Within 10 working days Journal Editorial Office informs the corresponding author of the preliminary conclusion of the Editorial Board of the Journal and the submission of the manuscript for anonymous external review or rejection of the manuscript due to non-compliance with the requirements of the Journal.

The recommended reviewers decide whether to accept or reject the invitation to review. In case of acceptance of the invitation, they should prepare and place in the electronic database of the Journal an Аnonymized Review of the article (download) within the established deadline.

In some cases, the Editor-in-Chief may invite another reviewer to form a final conclusion on the scientific level of the manuscript.

Reviewers are guided in their work by the recommendations of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The manuscript is evaluated by reviewers regardless of race, gender, nationality, religion, or political beliefs. The review process takes up to 4 weeks.

The submitted manuscript may be reviewed by two or more reviewers who evaluate the relevance, scientific novelty, validity of the study, quality and consistency of the results. Based on the conclusions of the reviewers, the members of the Editorial Board decide on the publication, revision or rejection of the manuscript and, if necessary, appoint additional reviewers. The reviewer’s feedback, provided anonymously, is shared with the authors. If the reviewer concludes that the manuscript is suitable for publication after the suggested revisions have been made, the authors will receive both the manuscript and the review comments. After making changes in accordance with the reviewer's comments, the authors resubmit the corrected version of the manuscript to the editorial board and additionally send a document describing the corrections made with explanations of the reviewer's comments. The article can be additionally reviewed by members of the editorial board. The additional review process may take up to three weeks.

The revised version of the article, incorporating all necessary corrections, is submitted to the editorial board for final approval.

In case of rejection of the manuscript, the Editorial Office of the journal will inform the authors of the reasons for this decision.

The Editorial Office reserves the right to make changes and corrections to the manuscript, including the correction of spelling and stylistic errors, the repositioning of tables and figures within the text, and so forth. However, this right is contingent upon the condition that the overall content and value of the research presented remains unaltered.

Сriteria Selection Policy

The journal selects reviewers in accordance with the recommendations and ethical standards set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), WAME (World Association of Medical Editors), and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

The editorial board endeavors to ensure that the review process is as objective, independent, confidential, and free from conflicts of interest as possible. While we cannot provide absolute guarantees, we make every effort to maintain these standards throughout the process.

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• have experience of participating in scientific reviews in the subject area of the manuscript;
• academic degree or relevant research experience;
• publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals;
• understanding of research methodology and basic statistical analysis;
• adherence to publication ethics and confidentiality principles;
• absence of conflicts of interest.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• provide objective, constructive, and unbiased reviews;
• maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and unpublished data;
• report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication;
• complete reviews within the established deadlines;
• disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review.

Procedure for appointing reviewers in case of conflict of interest related to the publication of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members of «Морфологія / Morphologia» may publish their research in the journal, provided they receive no preferential treatment regarding review timelines or evaluation criteria. To ensure impartiality, any board member acting as an author is strictly excluded from managing their own manuscript, including reviewer selection and decision-making. Such submissions are handled by an independent editor or external expert based on a collective decision of the Editorial Board through a double-anonymized peer-review process.