Peer review process

The peer review (expert evaluation) procedure is conducted to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal. The purpose of the review is to facilitate the careful selection of author manuscripts for publication, provide an objective assessment of the quality of submitted materials, and determine the degree of their 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. Initial Screening (up to 3 days). The journal follows a double-blind (anonymous) peer 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 screening by the technical editor of the publisher. The screening consists of verifying compliance with the requirements specified in the section “Formatting Requirements and Submission Procedure Article requirements”. Only articles that have passed the initial screening are admitted to the peer review stage.

2. Preliminary Expert Evaluation (up to 7 days).

The preliminary evaluation of the scientific article is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Submitted materials must correspond to the scope of the cluster “Formatting Requirements and Submission Procedure Article requirements” and reflect current scientific research results in the fields of information technologies, computer systems, electronics, and automation.

3. Article Coding Process (up to 3 days).

If the manuscript meets the publication requirements, it is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code to the article and removes information about the author(s) (the article coding process).

4. Appointment of Reviewers (2–3 days).

At this stage, two reviewers are appointed (one member of the editorial board and one external reviewer). The technical editor sends the coded (anonymous) article by email:

• a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific field of the article;
• an external reviewer.

External reviewers include Ukrainian and international Doctors of Sciences specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. On behalf of the editorial office, such a scholar receives a letter requesting a review. The letter includes the anonymous article and a standard review form (provided below). Reviews signed by the reviewer with a handwritten or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for one year from the publication date of the issue in which the reviewed article appeared.

5. Peer Review (2 weeks from the moment the reviewer receives the article). During the peer review process, reviewers address the following issues:

• Relevance of the research. Is the research relevant for science and industry?
• Literature analysis. Do the cited sources reflect the current state of research on the topic?
• Research goals and objectives. Are the research goals and objectives formulated correctly and appropriately?
• Adequacy of selected methods. Do the selected methods ensure the correct solution of the stated tasks?
• Correctness and reliability of results. Are the results correct according to the methods used to obtain them?
• Novelty and significance of the research. How new and valuable are the obtained results?
• Substance of the conclusions and their correspondence to the objectives. Are the conclusions based on the obtained results and consistent with the research objectives?
• Practical value of the results. Are the results practically valuable?
• Title of the article. Does the title correspond to the essence of the research?
• Article formatting. How well is the article structured and formatted?

The editorial board member and the external reviewer complete the standard review forms and select one of the following options:

• Accept for publication without revisions;
• Accept for publication after minor revisions;
• Revise and resubmit for repeated review;
• Substantially revise the article;
• Reject the article.

In the case of rejection or the need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written, reasoned explanation for the decision. Reviewers must complete the review within two weeks from receiving the article. If the reviewers’ opinions differ, 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 requiring revision are returned with the text of the review without identification of the reviewers. The revised version of the article is sent for repeated review, during which reviewers may request additional corrections. Revision does not guarantee acceptance, and if reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
7. Final Decision (from 1 day to 1 month. The timeframe depends on the date of the editorial board meeting). The final decision regarding the recommendation of the article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the received reviews and the results of plagiarism screening of the manuscript. The editorial board meets once a month on the last Friday of the month. Meetings may be held either online or offline.
8. Issue Preparation. If the article is accepted for publication, the editorial board prepares the issue according to the editorial and production process. If the article is rejected, the editorial office does not enter into discussions with the authors.

Standard Review Form

Type of manuscript (mark): Review / Original

№	Question	Yes (mark)	No (mark)	See comments (mark)
1.	Does the article correspond to the scope of the journal?
2.	Is the topic relevant: a) for practical application? b) for the development of theoretical knowledge?
3.	Are the concepts and conclusions correct and supported by the presented data?
4.	Does the title clearly and fully reflect the content of the work? (you may suggest an alternative title)
5.	Is the structure of the article adequate (for review and conceptual articles)?
6.	Is the description or referencing of materials and research methods sufficient (for original experimental articles)?
7.	Can the data obtained by the authors be considered reliable? Were appropriate statistical methods applied for processing experimental data (for experimental articles)?
8.	Are the presented materials new and original?
9.	Are the presentation of the text, the structure of the article, and its length satisfactory?
10.	Is it possible to shorten the article without losing its meaning?
11.	Can you suggest brief additions or corrections (words, phrases, incorrectly used terms) or propose a concise introduction that would increase the scientific value of the article?
12.	Are all figures presented in the text necessary? (if graphical materials are present)
13.	Are the tables and illustrations sufficiently clear? (if tables and illustrations are present)
14.	Have the authors sufficiently discussed the obtained results (including critical comparative analysis with the results of other authors)?
15.	Are the references to literature sources up to date?
16.	Is the information about methods and data sufficient for use by other researchers?
17.	Are the conclusions correct? Do they reflect the scientific and practical value of the research? Has the research objective (objectives) been fully achieved?
18.	Are the abstracts sufficiently informative? Is the language of the abstract suitable for effective comprehension?
19.	Were ethical rules followed during the research? Are appropriate references provided in the article text?
20.	Is this article: a) acceptable for publication in its current form? b) acceptable with minor revisions? c) acceptable only after major revisions and repeated review? d) unacceptable for publication?
21.	Any other general comments and specific suggestions