Peer review procedure

Peer review procedure, including a description of the type of review, criteria for selecting reviewers, deadlines, forms of documentation and decision-making

The peer review (expert assessment) procedure is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the collection of scientific papers "Cutting and Tools in Technological Systems". The purpose of peer review is to promote the careful selection of author's manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the quality of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the section Publication ethics.

  1. "Cutting and Tools in Process Systems" follows a "blind" (anonymous) peer review:
    • 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 are checked for compliance with the requirements posted in the Publication Terms section. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the Information for Authors section that have passed the initial control in the editorial office are allowed to the peer review stage.

  1. The initial examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. The materials sent must correspond to the theme of the collection.
  2. In case of compliance with the requirements for the publication of the collection, the manuscript of the article is transferred to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it (the process of coding the article takes place).
  3. A coded (anonymous) article is sent by e-mail:
    • member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
    • Ukrainian and foreign doctors of sciences specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in external review. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. An anonymous article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. Reviews signed by the reviewer with a regular or electronic signature are stored in the editorial office for 3 yearsfrom the date of publication of the issue of the collection in which the reviewed article is posted.
  4. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:
    • Relevance of the study

Is research relevant for production and science?

Literature analysis

Do the cited literature sources reflect the state of research on the chosen topic?

Purpose and objectives of the study

How correctly and correctly is the goal and objectives of the study?

Correctness of the chosen methods

To what extent do the chosen methods guarantee the correctness of solving the assigned tasks?

Correctness and reliability of the results

Are the results obtained correct according to the methods on the basis of which they are obtained?

Novelty of research and their significance

How new and valuable are the results obtained?

The content of the conclusions, their compliance with the tasks set

Are the conclusions based on the results obtained and correspond to the tasks?

Practical value of the results

How valuable are the results obtained?

Article title

Does the title of the article correspond to the essence of research?

Formatting the articleHow is the article formatted and arranged?.

  1. A member of the editorial board and external reviewers to whom the coded article was sent fill out standard review forms and select one of the options
    • Accept for printing without the need for corrections
    • Accept for printing after minor corrections
  1. Request corrections and recommend for re-review
  2. Fundamentally rework the materials of the article5. Do not accept the article for publication at all.

In case of refusal or the need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. An independent expert in the field of research should review the manuscript within two weeks from the date of receipt of the article.

  1. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles subject to revision are sent together with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-review, during which reviewers can ask for additional edits. Revisions do not guarantee the acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
  2. The final decision on recommending the article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the received reviews and the results of checking manuscripts for plagiarism.
  3. In case of acceptance of the article for publication, the editorial board prepares the issue of the journal in accordance with the technological process. In case of rejection of the article, the editorial board of the journal does not enter into a discussion with the authors.