Submissions

Author Guidelines

Abstract – a concise description of the article that presents the content, topic, and main points of the research without excessive detail, along with 5–7 keywords.
• For articles written in Ukrainian – the abstract in Ukrainian should be 800 (±100) characters, and in English – 1800 (±100) characters (without spaces).
• For articles written in English (or another EU language) – the abstract in English should be 800 (±100) characters, and in Ukrainian – 1800 (±100) characters (without spaces).

Relevance of the study. General formulation of the research problem and its connection to important scientific or practical tasks.

Review of previous research. Analysis of recent studies and publications that initiated the solution to the problem and form the basis for the author’s work; identification of aspects of the general problem that remain unresolved and are addressed in the article.

Purpose of the study. Formulation of the article’s objectives.

Research methods.

Research results. Presentation of the main research material with full justification of the obtained scientific findings.

Conclusions. Conclusions of the study and prospects for further research in this field.

Acknowledgements (optional)

Funding information (optional)

Note (as needed):

List of References and References section

The List of References and the References section must be formatted according to APA style.

Recommendations for formatting the reference list (links provided):
— Transliteration site for Ukrainian texts (1) – UKRLIT.ORG
— Transliteration site for Ukrainian texts (2) – Grafiati

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARTICLE

The electronic version must be prepared in .doc format (Microsoft Word), using Times New Roman font, size 12, line spacing 1.5, all margins set to 2 cm, and a paragraph indent of 1.25 cm. Subheadings of structural sections must be in bold. Figures, photos, graphs, and diagrams must be placed directly in the text and also provided as separate JPEG files with a resolution of no less than 300 dpi. Page orientation must be portrait. Text must be justified.

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE

Files should be sent to landscapeurope@gmail.com with the signature of the first author.

Required materials:

1. The article formatted according to the above requirements;

2. Figure files (numbered accordingly);

3. Author information and contact details (in Ukrainian, English, and Polish): full name, academic title, degree, place of work, position, address, phone numbers (for editorial board only), ORCID, e-mail;

Example of file naming: Surname_article; Surname_figure1; Surname_figure2; Surname_information.

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND EDITORIAL POLICY

Objectivity and Impartiality
A reviewer must provide an independent and professional assessment of the manuscript. Personal preferences, professional disagreements, or potential conflicts of interest must not influence the conclusions. If any circumstances arise that could compromise impartiality, the reviewer should notify the editorial office and decline the review.

 Confidentiality
Materials submitted for review are confidential and must not be disclosed or used for personal purposes. Any data, ideas, or research results must not be cited or shared with third parties prior to official publication.

 Reviewer Competence
The review should be conducted by a specialist with expertise in the subject of the study. If the reviewer feels insufficiently qualified to provide a thorough evaluation, they must inform the editorial office.

 Thoroughness of Analysis
The review should include a comprehensive assessment of the main elements of the article:

• Scientific novelty and relevance of the topic;
• Quality of theoretical and methodological approaches;
• Accuracy in the use of data, methods, and interpretations;
• Structural logic and completeness of presentation;
• Alignment of conclusions with the obtained results;
• Correct formatting and compliance with journal requirements.

 Academic Integrity
The reviewer should be alert to possible violations of academic integrity, including:

• Plagiarism or failure to provide proper citations;
• Duplication of previously published material;
• Data manipulation;
• Breaches of research ethics.

In case of suspicion of such violations, the reviewer must report them to the editorial office with reasoned explanations.

Constructive and Respectful Feedback
Reviewer comments should be clear, well-reasoned, and aimed at improving the scientific quality of the manuscript. Criticism must be professional and respectful, avoiding biased or offensive language.

 Recommendations
The reviewer should provide clear recommendations regarding the manuscript’s disposition:

• Recommend for publication;
• Recommend with editorial revisions;
• Suggest major revisions with re-review;
• Do not recommend for publication.

 Adherence to Review Deadlines
The reviewer must complete the evaluation within the timeframe established by the editorial office. If meeting the deadline is not possible, the reviewer should notify the editorial office in advance.

Plagiarism Screening

The journal conducts mandatory plagiarism screening of all submitted manuscripts as part of the initial editorial assessment prior to peer review. Screening is carried out systematically for all submissions using specialized plagiarism detection software (Identific) to identify textual similarities.

The editorial team reviews the similarity report and makes decisions in accordance with international publication ethics standards, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In cases where inappropriate or unethical borrowing is identified, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision or rejected.

Peer Review Policy

The journal’s peer review policy includes the following provisions:

Reviewer status.

All manuscripts are reviewed by external, independent experts who are not members of the journal’s editorial board and who have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

Type of peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure, under which neither the authors know the identity of the reviewers nor the reviewers know the identity of the authors.

Final decision-making.

The final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers’ reports and taking into account the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope.

Review timelines.

The standard timeframe for the initial round of peer review is approximately 3-4 weeks from the date the manuscript is sent to reviewers. If revisions are required, subsequent rounds of review may take an additional 2-3 weeks.

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW POLICY

Key Principles

Double-blind peer review means that the authors of a manuscript do not know the identities of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the authors. This approach ensures objective evaluation and minimizes bias based on personal characteristics, institutional affiliation, country, or previous publications of the authors.

Submission and Review Procedure

Authors submit the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s guidelines. The submission must not contain any information that directly or indirectly identifies the authors (e.g., names, institution, or specific details).

The editorial office checks the manuscript for compliance with formal requirements and for potential conflicts of interest.

The editor assigns two reviewers based on their subject-matter expertise.

Reviewers receive the manuscript without any author-identifying information. They evaluate scientific novelty, methodology, reliability of results, logical structure, and adherence to ethical standards.

Reviewers provide written comments and recommendations (accept, revise, or reject) to the editorial office.

Advantages of Double-Blind Peer Review:

• Enhances the impartiality of evaluation;
• Promotes fair competition among authors;
• Reduces the risk of discrimination based on personal or institutional factors;
• Encourages authors to prepare their manuscripts carefully and provide well-supported arguments.

Responsibilities of Reviewers and the Editorial Office

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and not disclose any information received;

The editorial office ensures that the process remains anonymous and transparent;

If a conflict of interest arises, the reviewer or editor must report it and avoid evaluating the specific manuscript.

Final Provisions

Double-blind peer review is the standard procedure for ensuring the high scientific quality of publications. The journal reserves the right, in certain cases, to apply alternative review types, but authors will be informed in advance.

Payment and Publication

The journal does not charge any fees for manuscript submission, publication, or open access. Article processing charges (APCs) are not applied, and the journal does not offer paid options for expedited review or publication.

All materials published in the journal «Landscape Science» undergo review by the Scientific and Methodological Council of Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University and are recommended for publication by the decision of the Academic Council of Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University.

All materials should be sent to: landscapeurope@gmail.com

Complaints should be sent to the following address: landscapeurope@gmail.com

CONTACT INFORMATION

Editorial Office of the journal Landscape Science
Vinnytsia Mykhailo Kotsiubynskyi State Pedagogical University
32 Ostrozkoho St., Vinnytsia, 21001, Ukraine

Managing Editor: Volodymyr Kanskyi +380975810949
Editor-in-Chief: Hryhoriy Denysyk  +380965268714