Procedure for reviewing


  1. Each article is recorded in the register in order of number and date of receipt.
  2. The article is sent to a reviewer appointed by the chief editor for single-blind reviewing (single-blind – the reviewer knows about the author; the author does not know who his reviewer is).  Review Form.
  3. A reviewer cannot be assigned an employee of the department in which the author works. The reviewers of the journal are members of the editorial board and attracted specialists who have experience in the field of research presented by the author. As a rule, these are candidates and doctors of science, professors.
  4. The reviewer may, within 1 week after receiving the article, assess whether he is qualified to carry out the review. The reviewer refuses to review if he considers his qualifications insufficient or one that does not correspond to the direction of the study. After reporting this, the main editor appoints another reviewer.
  5. Within 14 calendar days the reviewer provides an answer in the form of a review. In the review the reviewer reveals the positive aspects of the study and its shortcomings. The review ends with a conclusion: either “For printing”, or “For revision”, or “Not recommended for publication” (with justification of the reasons for rejection).
  6. The review is provided to the editors in written or scanned form and must contain the following elements: the title of the article; the author, the rationale for the compliance of the article with the subject of the journal; relevance; scientific novelty; compliance with the structure of a scientific article; completeness and sufficiency of disclosure of the topic in the abstract; reviewer comments; reviewer output; information about the reviewer, signature, date.
  7. The reviewer can justify the following points: the research topic is relevant and useful; the title of the article reflects its content and purpose; the summary to the article reveals its content; the author’s scientific argument is convincing; results are methodologically correct; the article is properly designed in accordance with the requirements of scientific research; the author’s conclusions are sufficient and illustrate the results of the study; what part of the article is subject to revision.
  8. If the reviewer gives the conclusion “For revision”, the article is sent to the author for making corrections and then can be reviewed again. If the author does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, in particular, in the case of obtaining the opinion “Not recommended for publication,” he has the right to provide a reasoned answer. The editorial board reserves the right to send the article to a friend of the reviewer or to reject the author’s comments, having listened to the opinion of the reviewer.
  9. The decision to publish is made by the chief editor on the basis of the positive decision of the reviewer (in difficult cases the decision is made by the editorial board), as reported to the author.
  10. The final decision on the content of the issue is made at a meeting of the Scientific Council of the Ukrainian Institute for Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information (the serial number and the date of the meeting are posted on the first page of each issue of the journal).
  11. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data presented, the observance of copyright and the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made in the article.

Approved at the meeting of the Academic Council of the Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information dated November 21, 2018 (Protocol No. 10).