Peer-review process

Procedure for reviewing articles submitted to the scientific journal
"Visnyk of Kherson National Technical University"

1. General provisions

The editorial board practices double-blind peer review, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other. The purpose of the review is to select for publication in the journal high-quality materials that have scientific and practical significance and meet the established requirements.

The article review procedure is carried out in several stages:

1. Selection of reviewers by the editor-in-chief according to the criteria below.
2. Informing the reviewer with a letter requesting review. The request is accompanied by the article with the author information removed and a link to the standard review form.
3. Reviewing the article takes up to 4 weeks from the date of receipt by the editorial office.

 2. Reviewer selection criteria

- reviewers are selected from among the members of the editorial board, or external specialists with a scientific degree;

- the reviewer's specialization must correspond to the direction of the articles submitted for review;

- the reviewer must have at least 3 published works in the relevant direction in publications indexed by Scopus or Web of Science Core collection in the last 5 years, which is confirmed in his/her corresponding scientific profile;

- absence of conflict of interest: the reviewer must not have any publications in common with the authors in the last 3 years, a common affiliation or interest in the result;

- the reviewer must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial;

- the reviewer must adhere to the policy of using artificial intelligence and inform the editorial office about the use of its tools;

- the reviewer must guarantee the non-disclosure of the review results.

3. Reviewer Procedure

Each reviewer evaluates the article according to the following indicators:

– correspondence of the title of the work to its content;

– correspondence of the structure of the article to the established requirements;

– correspondence of the literature used and the order of references to the established requirements;

– relevance of the presented research for theory and practice and its novelty;

– quality of the analysis of modern works on the topic of the study;

– correspondence of the methodology used to the tasks set;

– reliability of the obtained results and its provision;

– correspondence of the goal and results;

– validity of the conclusions;

– correspondence of the volume and content of the annotations to the established requirements.

After reviewing the materials, the reviewers may make one of the following decisions:

Positive:

- publish the article without changes;

- publish with minor changes;

- make corrections and send for re-review (if significant changes are necessary).

Negative:

- refuse publication without permission for resubmission (if the material has fundamental flaws, contains plagiarism or does not correspond to the topic of the journal).

In the case of one positive and one negative review, a third reviewer is involved.

Review forms are kept by the journal's editorial board. Reviewers' decisions are considered and approved during editorial board meetings.