Peer Review Process

The evaluation process for scientific articles submitted to the "Reporter of the Priazovskyi State Technical University. Section: Economic Sciences" is aimed at determining their scientific value, originality, and relevance in accordance with the international standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Core Practices). The peer review procedure is strictly based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Ukrainian-language resources of the EASE: Peer Review Toolkit, ensuring high-quality expertise, constructive dialogue with authors, and strict adherence to the principles of academic integrity.

In accordance with the ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023 standard, the journal employs a double-anonymized peer review model. This means that the author's identity is not disclosed to the reviewer, and the reviewer remains anonymous to the author. All interaction is handled exclusively through the Managing Editor. Articles submitted by editorial board members undergo the standard external independent review process, and such authors are completely excluded from the discussion and decision-making regarding their own manuscripts.

1. Manuscript Processing and Screening

Authors submit articles that comply with the journal's scope and technical formatting requirements. At the first stage, all manuscripts undergo a preliminary control (Pre-check) and a mandatory uniqueness check using specialized software (Turnitin or Plag).

Important: Manuscripts that are formatted in violation of the established editorial requirements (regarding structure, volume, citation, or technical file parameters) are returned to the authors for correction without being sent for peer review. Additionally, articles that do not match the scientific profile of the journal or show signs of plagiarism are not admitted to the review process.

2. Selection Criteria and Reviewer Replacement Procedure

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are sent to two independent reviewers. Highly qualified specialists who have current publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus databases are involved in the evaluation. Co-authors of the article or academic supervisors of degree seekers cannot act as reviewers due to a conflict of interest. Within 7 days, the reviewer must confirm their competence in the topic and the absence of bias. The deadline for submitting the expert report is typically up to one month.

When appointing experts, the editorial office carefully verifies the absence of conflicts of interest, including co-authorship or employment at the same institution. Editorial board members who submit their own works are subject to the standard external independent review process and have no right to influence decisions regarding their manuscripts.

Reviewer Replacement Procedure: If any form of bias arises, the reviewer is obliged to decline the evaluation. In the event of a refusal, the discovery of a hidden conflict of interest at any stage, or the reviewer's failure to meet the deadline (over one month), the Editorial Board performs an immediate replacement of the reviewer, appointing another independent expert to ensure the continuity and objectivity of the process.

2. Reviewer Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

During the examination, reviewers provide a reasoned assessment of the manuscript's scientific level. According to EASE recommendations, reviewers must adhere to the principles of constructive criticism, providing authors with specific advice for improving their work. In particular, reviewers focus on:

  • Scope and Title Alignment: the consistency of the article's content with the journal's themes and whether the title accurately reflects the essence of the research.
  • Scientific Novelty: the presence of original results that significantly complement existing knowledge in the relevant field of technical sciences.
  • Methodological Validity: the correctness of the chosen research methods and the completeness of the description of experiments or mathematical models.
  • Literature Analysis and Absence of Manipulation: the quality of the review of modern sources (specifically from Scopus/WoS), a clear definition of the study's position among existing works, and the absence of "manipulative citation" (unjustified pressure to cite the reviewer's own works).
  • Validity of Conclusions: the consistency of the results with the stated objectives and the obtained experimental or theoretical data.
  • Quality of Presentation: the logical structure, clarity of illustrations and graphs, and adherence to technical terminology.
  • Practical Significance: the possibility of implementing the results into production or their use for further scientific development.

3. Submission of Reports and Ethical Obligations

The reviewer submits a completed review form to the editorial office, providing either a score or a detailed comment for each specified point. In the concluding part, the reviewer must clearly state whether the article can be published in its current form, requires revision, or should be rejected due to significant scientific or ethical deficiencies.

Ethical Control: In accordance with COPE ethical guidelines, in the event of detecting signs of plagiarism, data manipulation, or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editorial board and provide the relevant evidence.

4. Review Outcomes and Decision Making

Based on the expert reports, the Editorial Board makes one of the following decisions:

  • Recommend for publication in its current form.
  • Recommend for publication after revision (incorporating changes without a second round of review).
  • Request major revision and a second round of peer review after significant improvements.
  • Reject the article due to inconsistency with scientific standards.

In controversial situations, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the comments. In such cases, the article may be sent to a third independent expert. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The journal ensures transparency of the manuscript's history by recording the received date, accepted date, and the number of review rounds in the metadata of the published article.