Reviewing process


Ruslan V. Vovk

D.Sc. in physics and mathematics, prof.

All scientific articles submitted to the Collection of Scientific Papers of the Ukrainian State University of Railway Transport (CSP UkrSURT) are peer-reviewed. The main purpose of reviewers is to expertly assess the quality of work and provide to authors of articles recommendations for improvement of their quality to achieve high standards of scientific work accepted by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, and in UkrSURT in particular.

The editorial board of CSP UkrSURT uses double-blind peer review technology, which means that the reviewer has no information about the article author’s name, and the author has no information about the identity of his article reviewer. Information about the author of the article and its reviewer is available only to the executive editor and technical secretary of the publication.

All the manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are checked by the editorial board for compliance of the article materials with the specialties of the Collection and sent to one reviewer whose specialty corresponds to the profile of research, the results of which are given in the article. If necessary (in cases of multidisciplinary article, controversial issues, etc.), the manuscript can be submitted for review to two or more reviewers. Reviewers are appointed by the magazine’s executive editor from the publication’s informal staff of reviewers.

In the process of reviewing, reviewers can be appointed from among the members of the editorial board of the Collection, as well as external (third-party) qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular field of science, degree and academic title.

Having received the article for review, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of considering the materials on the basis of his own professional knowledge and skills, taking into account the area of research of the author (authors) of the article and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer should not review the article and notify the editors immediately. The editorial board must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

The review period may vary from case to case, taking into account the conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials, but it should not exceed 1 month.

In the process of reviewing the interaction between the author (authors) and the reviewer (reviewers) occurs only indirectly through the Collection editors by e-mail.

After the final analysis of the author’s manuscript, the reviewer fills in a standardized form (“Reviewer’s form for double-blind review”), developed by the editorial board of the Collection, which contains a general assessment of the article according to established criteria and the reviewer’s conclusion on its publication in the CSP UkrSURT.

The editors inform the author about the review results by e-mail.

In case of a significant number of shortcomings of the article and its inconsistency with the requirements for scientific publications, the reviewer has the right to recommend excluding the article from publication in the CSP UkrSURT.

If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, the author is offered to consider these recommendations, make adjustments to the text of the article and send it again for consideration to the editors of the Collection.

The author should add a letter to the revised and corrected article. This letter contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes made to the article. The revised version is provided to the reviewer for re-evaluation and a decision on its publication. If necessary, the article can be sent for revision. The date of acceptance of the article is the date of receipt by the editorial board of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.

In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to a reasonable response to the editors of the Collection. In this case, the article will be considered at a meeting of the working group. The editors can send the article for additional or new review to another expert. The editors reserve the right to reject articles in case of impossibility or unwillingness of the author to take into account the suggestions and comments of the reviewer. At the request of the editors, the reviewer may submit the manuscript to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.

The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the editor-in-chief (or on his behalf – the executive editor), and if necessary during the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After deciding on the admission of articles to publication, the executive technical secretary of the editorial office notifies the author and informs him about the expected date of publication.

After receiving a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the manuscript is sent to the editorial department for inclusion in the next issue of the Collection. The article is undergoing technical editing to eliminate stylistic or formal shortcomings, the correction of which does not affect the content of the article, and this correction must be added to the text by the technical editor without the consent of the author (authors). If necessary or at the request of the author (authors), the manuscript as a layout may be provided to him for approval.

Responsibility for copyright infringement, principles of academic integrity and for violation of existing standards of scientific works in the materials of the article rests with the author (authors). Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions, recommendations and scientific and practical level of the article rests with both the author and the reviewer of the article.