The Visnyk of the National Bank of Ukraine conducts internal and/or external peer review, depending on the needs of a particular submission, to maintain high publication standards. The Head of the Research Division, as the Publisher’s authorized representative, determines whether review is required and what form it should take.

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

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers are encouraged to make sure that the paper matches their area of expertise and that they can meet the deadline.

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

• assess whether the title accurately reflects the content;
• assess whether the abstract clearly and concisely describes the research aims, methods, and key findings;
• assess whether the manuscript is well structured and logically coherent;
• assess the quality and robustness of the methodology employed, the analysis, the data, the discussion of results, and the conclusion;
• alert the publisher about any indications of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or other ethical irregularities;;
• provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript (accept, accept after minor revision, revise and resubmit, reject);
• provide a referee report that supports their recommendation.

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 material in any form (text, figures, tables, or data) from another source without proper citation and permission where required;
• ensuring that all data, methods, and analyses are reported transparently and reproducibly.

All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential. Reviews should be conducted objectively.

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

Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they feel unable to provide a competent review for any reason (e.g., tlack of subject expertise, inability to access necessary data, or any other limitation).

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

Reviewers must inform the publisher about any plagiarism. Reviewers should indicate relevant published research that the authors failed to cite in the manuscript. Reviewers should not request that authors cite their own work or that of specific journals unless such citations are clearly relevant and improve the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should declare all potential conflicts of interest.

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.

Reviewers should complete the review within the agreed timeframe and inform the publisher promptly if a delay is unavoidable.