Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review of manuscripts in the journal Foreign Affairs is a mandatory procedure of scholarly evaluation aimed at ensuring the appropriate academic standard of the publication. Its primary objective is to select the most substantive, relevant, and scientifically valuable materials, as well as to assess the extent to which submitted articles comply with the journal’s scientific, literary, and ethical standards. Expert evaluation is intended not only to determine the suitability of a manuscript for publication, but also to enhance its overall quality.

Peer Review Model

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure. This means that mutual anonymity of all parties is maintained at every stage of evaluation: reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities, and authors, in turn, do not know who conducted the review of their work. This approach is employed to minimise subjective influence and ensure the most impartial assessment of manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary review. At this stage, it is assessed whether the manuscript corresponds to the journal’s thematic scope, complies with formatting requirements, includes all necessary accompanying materials, and does not violate copyright or other basic editorial criteria. Only manuscripts that successfully pass this initial screening are forwarded for external scholarly evaluation.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment

The initial scholarly assessment of a manuscript is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or a Deputy Editor. At this stage, it is determined whether the article demonstrates sufficient academic potential, meets the general standards of the journal, and merits further peer review. Manuscripts that satisfy these basic criteria proceed to the next stage of editorial processing.

Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Handling

Particular attention is given to avoiding conflicts of interest. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author of a manuscript, has personal, professional, or other connections with the authors, or has a vested interest in the outcome of the review, they do not participate in the evaluation of that manuscript. In such cases, responsibility for assessment and decision-making is transferred to a Deputy Editor or another member of the editorial board who has no personal or professional interest.

Manuscript Anonymisation

Following successful completion of the initial stage, the manuscript is assigned a registration code, and all identifying information about the author(s) is removed from the text. The anonymised version is then forwarded for peer review. This is a necessary condition for maintaining the principle of double-blind review.

Selection of Reviewers

For the evaluation of a manuscript, the editorial board selects experts competent in the relevant field of research. As a rule, the manuscript is sent to a member of the editorial board responsible for the relevant subject area, as well as to two independent external reviewers. External reviewers include both Ukrainian and international scholars, typically holding doctoral degrees, whose expertise directly corresponds to the subject of the article. The primary criteria for reviewer selection are scholarly competence, relevant experience, and the ability to provide an objective and professional assessment.

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest in Reviewer Selection

The editorial board ensures that reviewers are independent of the manuscript’s authors. Individuals affiliated with the same institution, engaged in professional collaboration, having personal relationships, or otherwise connected in a way that could affect objectivity are not invited to review. This ensures a fair and unbiased evaluation process.

Submission of Manuscripts for Review

Once reviewers have been selected, the editorial office sends them the anonymised manuscript by email along with a standard review form. In the accompanying message, reviewers are invited to conduct a scholarly evaluation within their area of expertise. This procedure standardises the review process and helps maintain consistent evaluation criteria.

Content of Expert Evaluation

During peer review, the key characteristics of the scientific work are analysed. In particular, reviewers assess whether the content corresponds to the title, whether the study is relevant and demonstrates scientific novelty, whether its practical significance is convincingly substantiated, and whether it is of interest to both the specialist community and a broader readership. Thus, peer review encompasses substantive, methodological, and applied aspects of the manuscript.

Possible Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers complete a standard review form and select one of the available recommendations. A manuscript may be recommended for publication without revision, recommended subject to minor revisions, recommended subject to major revisions, or rejected. If revision or rejection is recommended, the reviewer must provide a detailed written justification.

Storage of Reviews

All reviews, signed either in handwritten or electronic form, are retained by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the issue in which the respective article appears. This ensures proper editorial documentation and transparency of internal procedures.

Notification of Authors

After processing the reviews, the editorial office informs the authors of the decision. If revisions are required, reviewer comments are provided without disclosing reviewer identities or any identifying information. This allows authors to revise their manuscripts while preserving the anonymity of the review process.

Re-review after Revision

If a revised version of the manuscript is submitted, it may be sent for re-evaluation. At this stage, the extent to which the author has addressed the reviewers’ comments is assessed. Revision does not automatically guarantee acceptance; if the changes are deemed insufficient, the manuscript may be rejected.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made based on the reviews, their reasoning, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s requirements. This decision is taken by the Editor-in-Chief or, in the case of a conflict of interest, by a Deputy Editor or another authorised member of the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in the evaluation of manuscripts in which they have a personal, professional, or other interest.

Independent Evaluation in Case of Editorial Interest

All manuscripts in which the Editor-in-Chief may have a personal or professional interest are subject to independent peer review without their involvement or that of their research group. This rule ensures the impartiality of the editorial process and maintains trust in the outcomes of expert evaluation.

Review Timelines

The standard period for peer review is approximately two to four weeks. However, the average time to the first editorial decision is typically between four and eight weeks, depending on the complexity of the topic, the speed of review submission, and the need for additional processing.