The procedure of reviewing
Procedure for the peer review of articles submitted to the editorial office of the scientific journal "Commodity science. Technologies. Engineering"
Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is conducted to ensure that the scientific journal "Commodity science. Technologies. Engineering" publishes the most valuable and relevant scientific works.
The scientific journal "Commodity science. Technologies. Engineering" adheres to a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:
- reviewers are not provided with the authors’ personal details;
- authors are not informed of the reviewers’ personal details.
Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo an initial check for compliance with the requirements set out in the "For Authors" section.
The Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy carries out the initial evaluation of a scientific article; based on the results of this review, two reviewers are appointed. The peer review process involves reputable Ukrainian and international scholars who specialize in fields relevant to the manuscript's subject matter. Both members of the editorial board and external experts invited by the editorial office participate in this process. Reviewers receive the anonymous manuscript for review via email. In the event of non-unanimous decisions regarding the further consideration of the manuscript, a third reviewer may be appointed. In such cases, the decision on publication is made by the two reviewers whose opinions coincide.
On behalf of the editorial office, the appointed reviewer receives via email a review request, the anonymous manuscript, and a standard review form.
The peer review period is two months.
Based on the results of the review, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions and comments are addressed;
- recommend that the author(s) substantially revise the article in accordance with the reviewer’s substantive comments, after which a final decision is made;
- not to recommend the article for publication.
The reviewers’ conclusions are sent to the author(s). Articles requiring revision are returned together with the full text of the review, without identification of the reviewer(s). The revised version of the article submitted by the author(s) is sent for repeated peer review. Revision does not guarantee a positive decision on acceptance of the article; if the reviewer(s) consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
During the peer review process, reviewers evaluate:
- the correspondence of the article’s content to the topic stated in the title;
- the relevance and novelty of the scientific problem addressed in the article;
- the substantiation of the scientific and practical significance of the conducted research;
- the logic, validity, and persuasiveness of the scientific argumentation and research conclusions;
- the systematic nature, clarity, and style of presentation;
- the value of the article for a wide readership.
Reviews are retained by the editorial office for three years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appears.
The final decision on the publication of an article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the received reviews and the results of manuscript checks for compliance with academic integrity requirements using the StrikePlagiarism system.
The editorial office does not engage in discussion with authors of rejected articles.
