All scientific articles submitted to the Journal are subject to mandatory peer review.
The purpose of the review process is to ensure the high scientific and technical quality of publications, their compliance with the journal’s scope, and adherence to principles of research integrity and publication ethics.
The peer review process follows the double-blind review model, meaning that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identity. In justified cases (e.g., invited papers, review articles, technical reports), the Editor-in-Chief may decide to apply a single-blind or open review procedure, informing the author before the process begins.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
The review process is confidential. The manuscript content, reviewer comments, and author data are treated as confidential information.
Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use information contained in the reviewed manuscript for personal, commercial, or scientific purposes.
Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest, including in particular:
- professional or financial relationships with the author,
- competing research in the same field,
- personal relationships that may affect objectivity.
If a reviewer identifies plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation, or methodological errors, they must immediately inform the Editorial Office.
The Editorial Office maintains records of all reviews, including submission dates, assignment dates, and recommendations.
Stages of the Review Process
Initial Assessment
After submission, the Editorial Office performs an initial evaluation, including:
- compliance with the journal’s scope,
- fulfillment of formal and editorial requirements,
- completeness of author information and ethical statements,
- originality check (using anti-plagiarism software).
Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to the author for correction or rejected without review.
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Secretary, decides whether the manuscript proceeds to the review stage.
Selection of Reviewers
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
Reviewers are selected from academic researchers, industry practitioners, or experts affiliated with research institutions and technical universities, ensuring independence.
Reviewers must not have any of the following relationships with the author:
- direct scientific collaboration within the last three years,
- hierarchical or supervisory dependency,
- family or personal relationships.
Before accepting the review assignment, the reviewer confirms:
- absence of conflict of interest,
- ability to complete the review within the specified deadline,
- familiarity with the journal’s ethical review standards.
In the case of divergent opinions, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer or consult a member of the Editorial Board.
Review Criteria and Recommendations
The review includes substantive, formal, and ethical evaluation. Reviews are prepared electronically using a form provided by the Editorial Office and include assessment of:
- relevance to the journal’s scope,
- originality and novelty,
- methodological correctness and quality of analysis,
- practical and application value,
- completeness and relevance of references,
- clarity of structure and language quality,
- compliance with publication ethics.
The reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:
- accept without revisions,
- accept with minor revisions,
- accept with major revisions and re-review,
- reject.
Each recommendation must be justified with substantive comments and guidance for the author. Reviews should be constructive, objective, and free of personal judgments.
Editorial Decision
After receiving at least two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates their content and recommendations and makes one of the following decisions:
- accept the manuscript,
- request revisions and re-evaluation,
- reject the manuscript (with justification).
In case of conflicting reviews, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after consultation with a member of the Editorial Board or after appointing an additional reviewer.
Author Notification and Revisions
The author is informed of the Editorial decision electronically and receives anonymized reviewer comments.
The author is required to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version within the deadline specified by the Editorial Office.
The revised manuscript may be sent again for peer review or evaluated internally by the Editorial Office.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief after obtaining positive reviews and completing formal verification.