Peer Review Procedure

Peer Review Model

The collection employs a double-blind peer review procedure:

  • Reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors (the manuscript is sent for examination only after the editorial office removes all identifying information);

  • Authors do not know the personal data of their reviewers.

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements posted in the "Formatting Requirements and Procedure for Submitting a Publication" tab. Only those scientific articles that are formatted in accordance with the requirements and have successfully passed the primary control at the editorial office are admitted to the peer review stage.

Pre-check

Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo a primary check by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief for compliance with the collection's profile and formatting requirements. Only those manuscripts that have successfully passed the pre-check and academic plagiarism check are admitted to the peer review stage.

Selection of Reviewers and Manuscript Transfer

If all requirements are met, the manuscript is sent to:

  • A member of the editorial board responsible for the corresponding scientific area;

  • External independent reviewers (Ukrainian or foreign specialists with an academic degree who specialize in the research subject area). Scientists who have no co-authorship or direct conflict of interest with the authors of the submitted article are involved in the external peer review.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

An independent expert must review the manuscript within two weeks of receiving it. During the review process, a standard form is filled out, covering the following aspects:

  • Relevance: is the topic relevant to modern science and industry?

  • Source analysis: does the literature review fully reflect the current state of the problem?

  • Aim and tasks: how clearly are they formulated?

  • Methodology: do the chosen methods correspond to the set tasks?

  • Reliability: are the results correct and justified?

  • Scientific novelty: what is the uniqueness of the obtained results?

  • Conclusions: are they based on the research results?

  • Practical significance: do the results have applied value?

  • Formatting quality: correspondence of the title to the essence of the research, quality of data visualization.

Forms of Reviewer's Decisions

Based on the results of the analysis, the reviewer chooses one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept for publication without the need for corrections;

  2. Revise and recommend for re-review;

  3. Reject the article (do not accept for publication).

In case of rejection or the need for revision, the reviewer provides a written reasoned explanation for their decision.

Communication with Authors and Revision

The decision of the editorial board and the text of the review (without identifying the reviewer) are sent to the authors. The revised version of the article by the authors is sent for re-review. The fact of revision does not guarantee publication: if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be finally rejected. In case of manuscript rejection, the editorial office does not enter into further discussion with the authors.

Approval and Storage of Documents

The final decision on recommending the article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the reviewers' conclusions and the results of the plagiarism check.