Peer review process


All submitted papers are peer reviewed in order to select the ones meeting the standards of the journal "Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology".

The review process is carried out by independent experts in relevant fields appointed by the editorial board. In most cases, the review procedure is double-blind when names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other.

Reviewers evaluate theoretical and methodological level of the paper, its practical value and scientific significance. All papers are checked for plagiarism by special programs.

Members of the editorial board are allowed to submit manuscripts which will undergo standard peer-reviewing directed by the Editor-in-Chief. Board members shall never be involved in editorial decisions about their own work.

Manuscripts that are sent to reviewers are intellectual property of authors and related to the information that remains confidential. That is why the review process is held on the grounds of confidentiality when information about the paper (terms, content, review stages, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers. The exception is the need for a special consultation with another specialist in the field, which requires the permission of the editorial board. The author of the scientific paper is given the opportunity to read the text of the reviews if he does not agree with the decisions of the experts.


The purpose of reviewing in the journal "Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology" is to maintain the highest ethical standards of research, according to which the reviewer should be familiar with requirements for ethics in scientific publications. The process of reviewing is aimed at improving the quality of published materials and overcome prejudice and injustice in declining or accepting articles.

Peer reviewers should:

1) only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment;

2) aim at being objective and constructive in their reviews and assessing the quality of the submitted article and determining the degree of its compliance with scientific and ethical standards;

3) not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;

4) declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest. In case of a conflict of interests, reviewer’s professional or personal ties with the author, which may affect the judgment of the reviewer, he / she must return the article, pointing to a conflict of interest;

5) provide reasoned justification of their own comments in case of accuse of plagiarism. Any assertion of plagiarism or a biased citation should be accompanied by appropriate references;

6) apply to the editorial board with the requirement for collective examination of the author's article if there is hesitation about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data.

7) assess the manuscript in a timely manner and show respect for the author as an individual.


Once a manuscript is submitted to the Journal "Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology", it undergoes an initial prescreening by the editorial board in order to determine whether the paper fits the scope of the journal. If the editorial board finds the manuscript meets the journal’s minimum standards for publication, the paper then undergoes the reviewing process.

Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements for publication in the journal "Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology" will not be considered.

The editorial board appoints a reviewer (in some cases two experts) in the author's field of study. The reviewer may be a specially invited specialist in the relevant field of expertise.

By decision of the editorial board individual articles of prominent scientists, as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.

In case of no conflict of interest and compliance of the reviewer's qualifications with the author's research, the reviewer provides the expert decision on the scientific level of the article and a recommendation to publish the article by filling out a specially designed form (sample review form is attached).

Normally the interval from submission to first decision is in the order of 90 days.

In case of any conflict of interests, the editorial board appoints another expert.

All manuscripts are double-blind peer-reviewed, which means that neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other). All papers provided for review shall show the degree of text uniqueness checked by special software. Quoting is allowed in an amount not exceeding 15% of the total text. Thus, the degree of text uniqueness shall exceed 85%.

After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer provides appropriate recommendations (accept the paper in its current format; accept the paper with minor changes; resubmit the paper with major changes; decline the submission), which the executive editor sends to the author by e-mail.

If critical comments appear, the article is sent to the author for revision. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer to prepare a decision on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt of the reviewer’s positive decision, after which the editorial board decides on the possibility of publishing the article. Based on the decision of the editorial board of the journal, the Academic Council of KNLU decides to recommend the issue of the "Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology" under consideration for publication.

In the matter of disagreement with the decision of the reviewer, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board. The case will be discussed at the meeting of the editorial board and the paper will be directed to additional review by another expert. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the paper in case of the author's inability or unwillingness to take into account the reviewers' comments and suggestions.

At the request of the author, the editorial board may give the article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.

The final decision on the possibility of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (the editorial board member does it on his behalf), and if necessary by the editorial board. After the decision to accept the article for publication, the executive editor informs the author and indicates the expected date of publication.

The paper, approved for publication, undergoes technical editing. Minor technical corrections which do not affect the content of the paper are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or on the author’s request, the galley-proof is sent to the author for approval.

The authors are responsible for the content of each article and copyright infringement as well as scientific and practical level, accuracy of facts and data, and validity of findings.

In case of the author’s disagreement with the editorial decision, the process of filing an appeal to the editorial office is declared in the journal.

Appeal procedure

  1. If the author does not agree with certain comments of the reviewer, he has the right to send to the editorial office an appeal in the format "comments of the reviewer – the author's comment". This document is sent to the reviewer and a decision on the manuscript is made together with the editorial board.
  2. In case the reviewers choose opposing resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept / reject), the editors will contact them and jointly consider all comments for the development of a position on the subsequent publication of the submitted material.
  3. If a decision cannot be made, the editorial board shall appoint an independent expert.


Sample review form

Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology

Volume 24 № 1 (2021)

Address: Kyiv National Linguistic University, 73, Velyka Vasylkivska Str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 03150

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Roman V. Vasko




Manuscript code 2 – 24 / 01 – 21



Evaluation Criteria




The TITLE matches the contents of the paper.




The article fits the stated SCOPE of the journal.




The article has all the STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS specified in the Author Guidelines (two abstracts in Ukrainian and English, problem statement and its solution, the aim of the article, recent literature review, results and discussion, conclusions and further research prospects, sources in the original language and transliterated).




The CLAIMS are novel and convincing.




The paper is based on sound linguistic METHODOLOGY.




The INTRODUCTION previews the main points of the paper.




and makes an original contribution.




The article contains significant ANALYSIS and sufficient FINDINGS, which support the objectives of the paper.




The opinion development is presented in a coherent, logical, consistent way.




The author's STATEMENTS and CONCLUSIONS are independent and convincing




The claims are appropriately discussed in the context of the latest relevant SOURCES.




Sources and citations are in line with the international APA style requirements.




The TABLES AND FIGURES (if any) are clear and useful, properly placed with the appropriate sources.  




The author(s) follow the proper structure in writing the English ABSTRACT of the paper (min. 1800 characters).




The list of KEYWORDS properly highlights the contents of the paper.






Tick mark to be given below in support of the decision

Accept the paper in its current format

Accept the paper with minor changes

Resubmit with major changes

Decline the submission



(Please give clear comments so that they can be communicated directly to the author without further explanation).

Reviewer –                                                                         

Date  _____                                                         Reviewer’s signature _____