{"id":243,"date":"2026-04-29T14:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T11:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/?page_id=243"},"modified":"2026-04-29T14:00:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T11:00:46","slug":"review-procedure","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/review-procedure\/","title":{"rendered":"Review procedure"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1 class=\"page_title\"><span dir=\"auto\">Review procedure<\/span><\/h1>\n<p><span dir=\"auto\">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&#8217;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 &#187;\u00a0<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/publikatsijna-etyka-ta-redaktsijna-polityka-cope-dora-fair-wame\/\"><span dir=\"auto\">Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy<\/span><\/a><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0&#171;.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">1. Primary control (up to 3 days).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0The collection follows a double-blind (anonymous) review procedure:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">the reviewer does not know the personal data of the authors;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">The authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span dir=\"auto\">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 &#187;\u00a0<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.snu.edu.ua\/index.php\/VisnikSNU\/requirements\"><span dir=\"auto\">Requirements for design and procedure for submitting a publication<\/span><\/a><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0&#171;. Scientific articles that have passed the initial control in the editorial office are allowed to proceed to the review stage.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">2. Primary examination (up to 7 days).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0The 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 &#171;Industrial and Construction Technologies, Logistics, Transport&#187; and reflect the current results of scientific research in the field of information technologies, computer systems, electronics and automation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">3. Article coding process (up to 3 days).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0If 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).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">4. Appointment of reviewers (2-3 days).\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0At 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:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">to an external reviewer.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span dir=\"auto\">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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">5. Reviewing (\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><strong><span dir=\"auto\">2 weeks from the moment the reviewer receives the article).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Relevance of the research. Is the research relevant to production and science?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Literature analysis. Do the cited literary sources reflect the state of research on the chosen topic?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Purpose and objectives of the study. How correctly and correctly are the purpose and objectives of the study set?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Correctness of the selected methods. To what extent do the selected methods guarantee the correctness of solving the tasks set?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Correctness and reliability of results. Are the results obtained correct according to the methods on the basis of which they were obtained?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">The novelty of the research and its significance. How new and valuable are the results obtained?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">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?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Practical value of the results. How practically valuable are the obtained results?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Title of the article. Does the title of the article reflect the essence of the research?<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Article layout. How is the article formatted and laid out?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span dir=\"auto\">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:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Accept for printing without the need for corrections;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Accept for printing after minor corrections;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Finalize and recommend for re-review;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Fundamentally rework the materials of the article;<\/span><\/li>\n<li class=\"show\"><span dir=\"auto\">Do not accept the article for publication.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span dir=\"auto\">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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">6. Article revision (up to\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><strong><span dir=\"auto\">7\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><strong><span dir=\"auto\">days).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0The reviewers&#8217; 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">7. Final decision (from 1 day to 1 month. The term depends on the date of the editorial board meeting).<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0The 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong><span dir=\"auto\">8. Preparation of the issue.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><span dir=\"auto\">\u00a0If 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><center><strong><span dir=\"auto\">Typical review form<\/span><\/strong><\/center><span dir=\"auto\">Nature of work (indicate): Review \/ Original<\/span><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th><span dir=\"auto\">No.<\/span><\/th>\n<th><span dir=\"auto\">Question<\/span><\/th>\n<th><span dir=\"auto\">Yes (check)<\/span><\/th>\n<th><span dir=\"auto\">No (mark)<\/span><\/th>\n<th><span dir=\"auto\">See comments (mark)<\/span><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">1.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Does the article fit the journal profile?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">2.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is the topic of the article relevant:<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">a) for practical application?<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">b) for the development of theoretical ideas?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">3.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the ideas and conclusions correct and are they supported by the data provided?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">4.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Does the title of the work clearly and completely reflect its content?<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">(You can suggest an alternative title)<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">5.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is the structure of the article adequate (for review and feature articles)?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">6.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is a description or reference to research materials and methods sufficient (for original experimental articles)?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">7.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Can the data obtained by the authors be considered reliable? Have adequate statistical methods been used to process experimental data (for experimental articles)?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">8.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the materials provided new and original?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">9.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the presentation of the text, the structure of the article, and its length satisfactory?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">10.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is it possible to reduce the volume without spending on content?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">11.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">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?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">12.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are all the figures in the text necessary? (if graphic material is available)<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">13.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the tables and illustrations sufficiently clear? (if tables and illustrations are available)<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">14.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Have the authors fully discussed the results obtained (including a critical comparative analysis of their own results with the data of other authors)?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">15.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the references to literary sources contemporary?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">16.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is the information provided about the methods and data sufficient to allow them to be used by other researchers?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">17.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the conclusions correct? Do they reflect the scientific and practical value of the study? Have the study&#8217;s goal(s) been fully realized?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">18.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Are the annotations informative enough? Is the language of the annotation acceptable for its effective perception?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">19.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Were ethical rules followed in conducting the research? Are there appropriate references in the text of the article?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">20.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Is this article:<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">a) acceptable for publication as submitted?<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">b) acceptable for publication with minor changes?<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">c) may be acceptable for publication only with significant changes and re-review?<\/span><br \/>\n<span dir=\"auto\">d) unacceptable for publication?<\/span><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">21.<\/span><\/td>\n<td><span dir=\"auto\">Any other general comments and specific suggestions<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&#8217;s manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/review-procedure\/\" class=\"more-link\">\u0427\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0434\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0435<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> \u00abReview procedure\u00bb<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-243","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245,"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/243\/revisions\/245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nvdu.snu.edu.ua\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}