Reviewing (peer review) is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems". The purpose of the review is to facilitate 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 Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement section.
1. The journal "Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems" adheres to double-blind (anonymous) peer review:
- reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors;
- authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements set out in the Author Guidelines section. The following scientific articles are allowed to be reviewed: those that are prepared in accordance with the requirements, have passed the initial control in the editorial office and copyright check.
3. The primary review of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or his/her deputy. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in the publication (is the author, co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the examination is carried out by his/her deputy or another member of the Editorial Board who does not have a conflict of interest. Submitted materials should correspond to the subject matter of the journal. If the requirements for publication of the journal are met, the article is submitted to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code to the article and removes information about the author or authors from it.
4. An anonymous article is sent by email:
- a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
- two external independent experts (reviewers).
Ukrainian and foreign doctors of sciences specialising in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in the 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. Reviewers cannot be affiliated with the same institution as the author and cannot have a conflict of interest.
5. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers cover the following issues:
- relevance of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title;
- the relevance and novelty of the scientific problem addressed in the article;
- substantiation of the practical significance of the research;
- value for a wide range of readers.
6. Reviewers fill out standard review forms and select one of the following options:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
- recommend the article for publication after significant revisions;
- not to recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewers' recommendation regarding the article is to reject or revise it, they must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Reviews signed by reviewers with a conventional or electronic signature are kept in the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the issue of the journal in which the reviewed article is published.
7. 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 the reviewers may ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
8. The Editor-in-Chief analyses the reviews of the reviewers and makes the final decision on publication based on them, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the requirements of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making on articles authored by himself, his family members or colleagues, as well as on materials related to products or services in which he has a personal interest. All such articles are independently peer-reviewed without the participation of the editor or his research team. The final decision on these articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Typical timeframe for expert evaluation: 2-4 weeks
Average time to first decision: 4-8 weeks
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Typical review form | 24 KB |