Review procedure
The review procedure (expert evaluation) is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the collection. The purpose of the review is to facilitate the careful selection of author’s manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the section » Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy «.
1. Primary control (up to 3 days). The collection follows a double-blind (anonymous) review procedure:
- the reviewer does not know the personal data of the authors;
- The authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control by the technical editor of the publishing house. The control consists of checking whether the article complies with the requirements posted on the tab » Requirements for design and procedure for submitting a publication «. Scientific articles that have passed the initial control in the editorial office are allowed to proceed to the review stage.
2. Primary examination (up to 7 days). The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. The materials sent must correspond to the profile of the cluster «Industrial and Construction Technologies, Logistics, Transport» and reflect the current results of scientific research in the field of information technologies, computer systems, electronics and automation.
3. Article coding process (up to 3 days). If the requirements for publication in the collection are met, the article manuscript is sent to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it (the article coding process takes place).
4. Appointment of reviewers (2-3 days). At this stage, 2 reviewers are appointed (one member of the editorial board and one external reviewer). The technical editor sends the coded (anonymous) article by e-mail:
- a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
- to an external reviewer.
External review involves Ukrainian and foreign doctors of science specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. The letter is accompanied by an anonymous article and a standard review form (given below). Reviews signed by the reviewer with a regular or electronic signature are stored by the editorial board for 1 year from the date of publication of the collection in which the reviewed article was placed.
5. Reviewing ( 2 weeks from the moment the reviewer receives the article). In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:
- Relevance of the research. Is the research relevant to production and science?
- Literature analysis. Do the cited literary sources reflect the state of research on the chosen topic?
- Purpose and objectives of the study. How correctly and correctly are the purpose and objectives of the study set?
- Correctness of the selected methods. To what extent do the selected methods guarantee the correctness of solving the tasks set?
- Correctness and reliability of results. Are the results obtained correct according to the methods on the basis of which they were obtained?
- The novelty of the research and its significance. How new and valuable are the results obtained?
- The content of the conclusions, their correspondence to the tasks set. Are the conclusions based on the results obtained and correspond to the tasks set?
- Practical value of the results. How practically valuable are the obtained results?
- Title of the article. Does the title of the article reflect the essence of the research?
- Article layout. How is the article formatted and laid out?
The editorial board member and the external reviewer to whom the coded article was sent fill out standard review forms and select one of the options:
- Accept for printing without the need for corrections;
- Accept for printing after minor corrections;
- Finalize and recommend for re-review;
- Fundamentally rework the materials of the article;
- Do not accept the article for publication.
In case of rejection or need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviewers must review the manuscript within two weeks of receiving the article. In case of disagreement between the reviewers, a third reviewer is appointed or the decision is made by the editorial board.
6. Article revision (up to 7 days). The reviewers’ decision is sent to the authors. Articles that are subject to revision are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review, during which the reviewers may request additional edits. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
7. Final decision (from 1 day to 1 month. The term depends on the date of the editorial board meeting). The final decision on recommending the article for publication is made at the editorial board meeting, taking into account the reviews received and the results of checking manuscripts for plagiarism. The editorial board meets once a month on the last Wednesday of the month. The meeting can be held both online and offline.
8. Preparation of the issue. If the article is accepted for publication, the editorial board prepares the issue of the collection in accordance with the technological process. If the article is rejected, the editorial board of the collection does not enter into a discussion with the authors.
| No. | Question | Yes (check) | No (mark) | See comments (mark) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Does the article fit the journal profile? | |||
| 2. | Is the topic of the article relevant: a) for practical application? b) for the development of theoretical ideas? |
|||
| 3. | Are the ideas and conclusions correct and are they supported by the data provided? | |||
| 4. | Does the title of the work clearly and completely reflect its content? (You can suggest an alternative title) |
|||
| 5. | Is the structure of the article adequate (for review and feature articles)? | |||
| 6. | Is a description or reference to research materials and methods sufficient (for original experimental articles)? | |||
| 7. | Can the data obtained by the authors be considered reliable? Have adequate statistical methods been used to process experimental data (for experimental articles)? | |||
| 8. | Are the materials provided new and original? | |||
| 9. | Are the presentation of the text, the structure of the article, and its length satisfactory? | |||
| 10. | Is it possible to reduce the volume without spending on content? | |||
| 11. | Can you suggest brief additions or corrections (of words, phrases, incorrectly used terms) or suggest a concise introduction to the article that would enhance the scientific value of the article? | |||
| 12. | Are all the figures in the text necessary? (if graphic material is available) | |||
| 13. | Are the tables and illustrations sufficiently clear? (if tables and illustrations are available) | |||
| 14. | Have the authors fully discussed the results obtained (including a critical comparative analysis of their own results with the data of other authors)? | |||
| 15. | Are the references to literary sources contemporary? | |||
| 16. | Is the information provided about the methods and data sufficient to allow them to be used by other researchers? | |||
| 17. | Are the conclusions correct? Do they reflect the scientific and practical value of the study? Have the study’s goal(s) been fully realized? | |||
| 18. | Are the annotations informative enough? Is the language of the annotation acceptable for its effective perception? | |||
| 19. | Were ethical rules followed in conducting the research? Are there appropriate references in the text of the article? | |||
| 20. | Is this article: a) acceptable for publication as submitted? b) acceptable for publication with minor changes? c) may be acceptable for publication only with significant changes and re-review? d) unacceptable for publication? |
|||
| 21. | Any other general comments and specific suggestions |