Peer Review Procedure

Peer review (expert evaluation) is conducted to ensure a high scientific and theoretical standard of the journal “Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems”. The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of manuscripts for publication, provide an objective assessment of the quality of submitted material, and determine the extent to which it meets scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and comply with the provisions of the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement section.

During the peer review process, a manuscript should become:

• More detailed. Reviewers may point out shortcomings in your work that require further explanation or additional experiments.
• Easier to understand. If certain aspects of your work are difficult for readers to comprehend, reviewers may ask for clarification or revision.
• More useful. Reviewers assess the importance of your research within its subject area.

Another aspect of the journal’s peer review policy is that the editorial board aims to publish only high-quality materials. If the journal publishes low-quality work, its reputation and readership will decline.

The journal “Advances in Cyber-Physical Systems” follows a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:

reviewers do not know the personal details of the authors;
authors do not know the personal details of the reviewers.

 

The peer review procedure includes several stages.

1. 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.

 

2. The initial evaluation of the scientific article is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief. If the submitted article lacks scientific potential and is not of interest to the publisher, the authors will be informed in due course. If the article attracts the Editor-in-Chief’s interest, reviewers are assigned (2–3 months per review cycle). In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in publication (is an author or co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the evaluation is conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest. Submitted materials must correspond to the journal’s scope. If publication requirements are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code and removes author information.

 

3. The anonymized article is sent by email to external independent experts (reviewers). External reviewers include Ukrainian and foreign doctors of sciences specializing in the same field as the authors of the article. The editorial office sends an invitation letter requesting a review. The anonymized article and a standard review form are attached. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest.

 

4. During peer review, reviewers evaluate the following:

• the correspondence of the article content to the topic stated in the title;
• the relevance and novelty of the scientific problem addressed;
• the justification of the practical significance of the research conducted;

its value for a broad readership.

 

5. Reviewers complete standard review forms and select one of the following options:

• recommend the article for publication;
• recommend publication after revisions;do not recommend the article for publication.

If the recommendation is rejection or revision, reviewers must provide a reasoned explanation for their decision. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 3 years from the publication date of the issue containing the reviewed article.

 

6. The editorial board’s decision is communicated to the authors. Articles requiring revision are sent together with the review text without identification of the reviewers. The revised version is sent for re-review, during which reviewers may request additional changes. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance, and if the changes are deemed unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

 

7. The Editor-in-Chief analyzes the reviewers’ reports and makes the final decision on publication based on all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, family members, or colleagues, nor regarding materials related to products or services in which they have a personal interest. Such articles undergo independent peer review without involvement of the Editor-in-Chief or their research group. The final decision in such cases is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

 

8. After acceptance, the manuscript undergoes professional editing, English language editing, author proofreading, final corrections, and publication.

 

Average time for initial manuscript evaluation — 14 days;
Average time for peer review — 30 days;
Average time to publication — 30 days.