Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Botany

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Zoology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Biotechnology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Biochemistry

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Genetics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Hydrobiology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Ecology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Ichthyology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Molecular biology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Physiology of humans and animals

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Plant physiology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Cytology, cell biology, histology

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

History of science. Persons

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Messages, reviews, chronicles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The Editors accept theoretical and methodological articles concerning the journal's focus and scope. Manuscripts which do not correspond the main approach (ICT in education) or the edition's requirements can be rejected at the stage of initial review.

The Editors support international high standards of the peer review process transparency, therefore practice the double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names. Previously all of their personal information removed from the articles texts and files.

The submitted articles are sent for reviewing to two independent experts. The reviewers view the article's abstract, whereupon consent or refuse to review this material. In the case of refuse, other reviewers are appointed.

The reviewers consider the material and estimate its scientific level filling "Review Form", where specify their remarks and comments. Additionally, experts may upload files with corrections or materials which can be used for the revision of the article.

After filling the basic "Review Form" experts select one of the offered recommendations:

  • Accept Submission – the article is ready for publication and accepted without changes
  • Revisions Required – accepted, if the author takes into account the indicated remarks
  • Resubmit for Review – need a revision and repeated reviewing
  • Resubmit Elsewhere – the subject of the article corresponds to other edition
  • Decline Submission – the article does not correspond to the requirements of the edition
  • See Comments – choose in the case when none of previous recommendations is satisfied

On completion of reviewing process all corresponding information sends to the author. The author improves the article and uploads an updated version. If the article is not returned or the edition is not informed about delay, the article is taken off from a turn and deleted.

The reviewers re-examine improved manuscript and provide a recommendation on the possibility of its further publication.

Appeal Procedure:
  1. If the author does not agree with some reviewers` comments, he may submit an appeal to the editor in the format "reviewers` comments - author ‘s response." This document will be sent to the reviewer and together with the editors will made a decision on the manuscript.
  2. When reviewers choose mutually opposite resolution (accept/reject), the editors contact with them and consider together all comments to harmonize positions on further publication of this material.
  3. If a decision cannot be reached, the editors appoint an independent expert.

 

Open Access Policy

Deposit Policy

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) during the editorial process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see this journal’s registered deposit policy at Sherpa/Romeo directory).
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Post-print (post-refereeing manuscript version) and publisher's PDF-version self-archiving is allowed.
  4. Archiving the pre-print (pre-refereeing manuscript version) not allowed.

 

Archiving

Open Journal Systems supports the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system to ensure a secure and permanent archive for the journal. LOCKSS is open source software developed at Stanford University Library that enables libraries to preserve selected web journals by regularly polling registered journal websites for newly published content and archiving it. Each archive is continually validated against other library caches, and if content is found to be corrupted or lost, the other caches or the journal is used to restore it. 

The "Scientific Issue Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University. Series: Biology" journal also utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries. The Editors permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

LOCKSS Publisher Manifest

Additionally, all files are periodically archived and preserved with The Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine.

 

Publication Frequency

Electronic scientific professional edition "ITLT" is published 6 issues per year.

Issue №Estimated date for issue publication
1at the end of March
2at the end of Jun
3at the end of September
4at the end of December