Peer-Review Procedures

The peer review process of submissions to the journal "Reporter of the Priazovskyi State Technical University. Section: Technical sciences" of scientific articles is aimed at identifying the degree of their value, originality, relevance and scientific expediency for the prerogatives of the journal, the suitability of the manuscript for its publication, taking into account the requirements of the Committee on Ethics in Publications – Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ; aimed at improving the quality of printed materials, overcoming bias and impropriety in rejecting or accepting articles.

The aim of peer review is to establish the quality standards of the author's manuscripts, their compliance with the profile of the journal, and to improve the quality of the scientific articles published in the journal through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts. In addition, the aim of the peer review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor quality research practices and to ensure coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution where the research was conducted.

The peer review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors, and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind review). Interaction between reviewers and authors is carried out only through authorized members of the editorial board.

Articles of members of the editorial board undergo a standard external independent peer review procedure organized by the editor-in-chief. Members of the editorial board do not participate in the review of their own manuscripts.

Terms of peer review of the article by the reviewer - from the day he receives the article for review - up to one month.

Procedure for passing manuscripts

  1. Articles that do not correspond to the journal's scientific profile are not submitted for review. The author is sent a notification of refusal to consider it and further publication.
  2. The author submits an article to the editors that complies with the journal's editorial policy and requirements for scientific works, as well as the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the accepted norms are not allowed for further consideration, which is reported to their authors.
  3. In all manuscripts submitted to the reviewer, the degree of uniqueness and originality of the author's text must be determined using appropriate software (in particular, Plag or Unicheck).
  4. If the manuscript complies with the policy of the journal and the rules for preparing articles for publication, as well as if there is a positive result of the plagiarism check, the manuscript is submitted for review to a specialist in the relevant field of knowledge.

Peer review procedure

The peer review procedure is focused on the most objective and unbiased assessment of the content of the scientific article, determination of its compliance with international requirements for articles in scientific publications, competent comprehensive and thorough analysis of the article and identification of its specific shortcomings, and also provides for the following:

  1. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to initial control regarding the correspondence of the journal profile, completeness and correctness of their design in accordance with the requirements for the design of manuscripts.
  2. The primary expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out either by the editor-in-chief, or by his deputy, or by the executive secretary.
  3. The manuscript submitted to the editorial office is submitted to two reviewers, taking into account the profile of their research. Reviewers can be appointed by the editor-in-chief, his deputies and the executive secretary. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. 
  4. Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to double-blind principles (two-way "blind" interaction, when neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). Communication between the author and the reviewers takes place virtually (through the executive secretary). The editorial board ensures consideration of all articles of each issue of the journal in the mode of double-blind review.
  5. For the analysis of articles, well-known domestic and foreign highly skilled specialists (doctors of science, professors) who have thorough scientific knowledge in the field, competences, experience in scientific, analytical and expert work in this scientific field, as well as publications corresponding to the scientific profile of the journal and included in the Web of Science Core Collection and/or Scopus databases, are invited to act as reviewers. 
  6. A peer reviewer cannot be a co-author of the article under review, as well as academic supervisors of scientific degree obtainers.
  7. After receiving the manuscript of the article, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of observing its materials within 7 days, based on the appropriateness of his own qualifications in the direction of the analyzed research and the absence of any conflict of scientific interests. In the event of bias or conflicting interests due to competition or different views, the reviewer should refuse to review the article and inform the editorial board about it. The latter must decide on the issue of appointing another expert.
  8. The reviewer sends a conclusion to the editorial office about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of publication the article. The terms of review in each individual case may change depending on the conditions, the creation of which is necessary for the most objective assessment of the degree of value of the manuscript.
  9. The executive secretary sends a review with the results of the analysis of the article to the author.

Peer review results

The editors inform the authors about the editorial board's decision to accept the manuscript for publication. The decisions can be as follows:

  • to recommend for publication in the version submitted by the author;
  • to recommend for publication after the author has made changes taking into account the comments and suggestions of the reviewer;
  • necessary additional reviewing and appointment of other reviewer after correction of the article taking into consideration the remarks and proposals, which were done by the reviewer;
  • to reject the article.
  1. If in a review there are remarks with a suggestion of the necessity to finish off the article (to bring some corrections), the article is sent to the author for its improvement and presentation of the renewed variant, or correct and sure refutation of the noted defects, or substantiated motivation of those authorial positions which are perceived as inappropriate and inadvisable. To the renewed article an author adds a letter, which contains answers for all remarks and explanations to made alterations. The improved version of the article is resubmitted to the reviewer for making a second decision and, in case of agreement with the author, for the preparation of a motivated opinion on the possibility of its publication.
  2. The reasons for re-reviewing may be: insufficient qualification declared by the expert in the issues considered in the scientific article; insufficiently high level of primary expert opinion; acute disputability of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
  3. In case of controversial situations and in case of disagreement between the author and the opinion of the reviewer, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board, which organizes an additional or repeated review by another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unable to refute the arguments used by the reviewers or if he is unwilling to take into account the Expert's suggestions and comments. At the request of the first reviewer, the editorial board can submit the article to another reviewer with mandatory observance of the principles of double-blind review.
  4. The final decision in relation to the possibility of publishing an article that was subject to additional or repeated review is made by the editor-in-chief (or, on his behalf, by a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, by a meeting of the editorial board. After receiving the decision to accept the article for publication, the executive secretary of the editorial board notifies its author and informs the expected date of publication.
  5. In case of receiving a positive decision on the expediency of publishing a re-reviewed article, the last one in order of priority and taking into account its relevance is sent for publication. 
  6. The editorial board reserves the right to scientific and literary editing of the content of the article in agreement with the author. Minor corrections of a lexical-semantic, punctuation-grammatical, linguistic-stylistic or formal-technical nature, which do not affect the quality of the content of the article, are made by the technical editor without agreement with the author. If it is necessary to clarify certain issues that have arisen, or in connection with the wish of the author of the manuscript, the latter are returned to him in the form of a layout for approval.
  7. At the author's request, the editors provide him with a certificate of acceptance of the article for publication signed by the editor-in-chief.
  8. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is considered the date of the decision of the editorial board regarding the justification of publishing the article in the corresponding issue of this scientific journal.