In the journal Science, Technologies, Innovations, all scholarly articles undergo an open peer review procedure.
In this journal, open peer review means that, during the evaluation of a manuscript, the author and the reviewer know each other’s names. The editorial office ensures a professional, impartial, and ethical review of submitted materials and adheres to the principles of academic integrity, editorial independence, and the prevention of conflicts of interest.
1. Initial editorial review
After submission to the editorial office, a manuscript is registered with the date of submission recorded.
At the initial review stage, the editorial office checks:
- whether the article corresponds to the journal’s academic profile and scope;
- whether the formatting requirements have been followed;
- whether all required metadata are provided;
- whether the structure of the scholarly article is appropriate;
- whether the policies on academic integrity, publication ethics, and AI usage have been observed.
Materials that do not correspond to the journal’s profile or formal requirements may be returned to the author without being sent for review.
2. Appointment of reviewers
At least two independent reviewers are involved in the review process. Reviewers must be specialists in the relevant academic field and have appropriate academic qualifications.
A reviewer may not participate in the consideration of a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest, including an official, academic, personal, financial, or institutional conflict that could affect the objectivity of the review.
If a conflict of interest exists, or if the reviewer lacks sufficient competence in the subject of the research, the reviewer must immediately inform the editorial office and decline the review assignment.
3. Conduct of the review
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria:
- relevance of the topic;
- scientific novelty;
- consistency of the title, abstract, and keywords with the content of the article;
- clarity of the problem statement, aim, and objectives of the research;
- appropriateness of the methodology;
- validity of the results and conclusions;
- quality of the use of sources;
- academic style of presentation;
- compliance with ethical standards and the principles of academic integrity.
As a rule, the review should be completed within 21 calendar days from the date the reviewer receives the manuscript, unless otherwise determined by the editorial office.
4. Possible decisions following peer review
Following the review, the reviewer may recommend one of the following decisions:
- accept the article for publication;
- accept the article after minor revisions;
- return the article for major revision followed by repeat review;
- reject the article.
Each review must contain a reasoned conclusion and, where necessary, specific recommendations for improving the text.
5. Author’s response to reviewer comments
Where revision is required, the editorial office sends the reviewer comments to the author.
The author submits to the editorial office:
- the revised version of the article;
- a response to the reviewer comments explaining the changes made or providing a reasoned justification for disagreement with particular comments.
In the case of substantial revision, the manuscript may be sent again to the same reviewer or to another reviewer.
6. Final decision
The final decision on the publication of an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers’ conclusions and, where necessary, after discussion at a meeting of the editorial board.
The editorial office has the right to reject a manuscript if:
- the author has not addressed substantial deficiencies;
- a breach of academic integrity has been identified;
- the article does not correspond to the journal’s academic profile;
- the material does not meet the standards of scholarly quality and the editorial policy of the journal.
7. Principles of ethical interaction during peer review
The reviewer must:
- provide an objective, reasoned, and respectful assessment;
- not use the manuscript materials for personal benefit before their publication;
- observe professional ethics in comments;
- inform the editorial office of any signs of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification of data, or other violations.
The author must:
- respond appropriately to reviewer comments;
- not engage in communication with the reviewer outside the editorial process regarding the manuscript;
- comply with the requirements of academic integrity and publication ethics.
The editorial office ensures an impartial consideration of manuscripts, compliance with ethical standards, and the prevention of any form of discrimination or abuse of editorial authority.
8. Transparency of the editorial process
Information about the review model, editorial policy, and ethical principles of the journal is publicly available on the official website of the journal.
For each article accepted for publication, the journal website and the article file indicate:
- the date of initial manuscript submission;
- the date the article was accepted for publication after peer review;
- the date of publication.
9. Language and form of the review
The review must be submitted in writing using the form approved by the editorial office or in a format containing all the necessary elements for expert evaluation of the manuscript.
The working languages of peer review are Ukrainian and, where necessary, English.
10. Final provisions
Submission of a manuscript to the journal means the author’s consent to this peer review procedure.
All issues not regulated by this procedure are resolved by the editorial office in accordance with the journal’s editorial policy, academic integrity policy, and publication ethics policy.
To prepare a review, please use the approved template – Open Review Template.
