Review process

Reviewing in the journal "Prospective Technologies and Devices" is a key tool for ensuring scientific quality and compliance with professional standards. Its main task is to ensure that published materials meet the requirements of academic integrity, have an appropriate level of scientific validity and do not contradict ethical principles. Reviewers must act impartially, avoid conflicts of interest and adhere to the norms enshrined in the Journal's Publication Ethics.

 

1. Review model

The journal operates a double-blind review system. This means that the personal data of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to either party. This format minimizes the influence of subjective factors and promotes an honest, thorough assessment of the work.

 

2. Initial editorial review

After receipt, the manuscript undergoes an initial analysis by the editorial office. At this stage:

– the correspondence of the material to the thematic focus of the journal is assessed;

– compliance with technical requirements and design standards is checked;

– control is carried out for copyright violations.

Only those manuscripts that meet all formal criteria are allowed for further peer review.

 

3. Expert review by the editor-in-chief

A preliminary content analysis is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his deputy. During this stage, it is assessed whether the article has the potential for publication, whether it corresponds to the thematic direction, whether it is qualitatively written and scientifically relevant.

If the editor-in-chief cannot evaluate the article due to a conflict of interest (personal or professional ties with the authors, co-authorship, etc.), the work is transferred to another member of the editorial board.

After approval of the article at this stage, the technical editor anonymizes the manuscript and assigns it a unique code.

 

4. Transfer for external review

The anonymized article is sent:

– to a representative of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction;

– to two independent external experts from Ukraine or other countries.

The evaluation involves highly qualified specialists who have a doctoral degree and specialize in the relevant field. Reviewers cannot be institutionally or personally related to the authors, which guarantees the absence of bias.

 

5. Main evaluation criteria

While working on the article, experts analyze the following aspects:

– how well the title corresponds to the actual content of the article;

– the relevance of the topic raised and the level of its scientific novelty;

– methodological clarity and correctness of the research;

– the practical significance of the results obtained;

– the logical presentation, the validity of the conclusions and the value of the material for the scientific community.

The reviewers also indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest ways to improve it, and form a generalized conclusion.

 

6. Possible results of the review

After the analysis, experts can make one of the following conclusions:

– the article can be published without changes;

– the article is recommended for publication with minor edits;

– significant revision is required;

– publication is not recommended.

In case of refusal or need for revision, reviewers justify their remarks in the form of detailed comments.

 

7. Work with the author after review

The author receives the decision of the editorial board along with a full set of recommendations for improving the text. If necessary, the revised article is resubmitted to the editorial office and may be sent for additional or repeated review. The reviewer has the right to demand further clarifications or revisions.

Even after significant changes, the manuscript may be rejected if its quality remains insufficient or the experts' comments have not been properly taken into account.

 

8. Final decision

The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief, based on the conclusions of the experts and the general compliance of the article with the journal requirements. In situations where there is a conflict of interest, the deputy editor-in-chief makes the final decision.

 

Typical review time 2-4 weeks

Average time to first decision 4-8 weeks