Reviewing
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS FOR THE JOURNAL “SCIENCE AND TRANSPORT PROGRESS”
All articles submitted to the editorial board undergo a review (scientific examination) procedure, with the exception of reviews and informational reports. The editorial board has established the following procedure for reviewing manuscripts:
1. The author submits a manuscript to the editorial board that meets the requirements of the journal "Science and Transport Progress" and the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not accepted for further consideration, and their authors are notified accordingly.
2. Each manuscript is preliminarily evaluated by the section editor for compliance with the journal's scope and minimum requirements.
3. After a positive decision, the manuscript is sent for review to two external experts working in the relevant field. The manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review.
4. The reviewer's comments and suggested corrections are then sent to the authors. The Issue Editor informs the authors of the status of acceptance (accept without corrections, resubmit with corrections, reject). This process takes place within 90 days. Review times may vary in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided.
5. The editor-in-chief of the relevant research section of the journal "Science and Transport Progress" reviews and appoints reviewers. By decision of the editor-in-chief of the journal (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the selection of reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal (in accordance with the recommendations of the editors-in-chief of the sections), individual articles by prominent scientists, as well as authors specially invited by the editorial board to write an article, may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
6. Interaction between the author and reviewers takes place via email correspondence with the responsible secretary of a specific section of the journal “Science and Transport Progress” or via the OJS (Open Journal Systems) publishing platform. At the request of the reviewer and with the consent of the editorial board working group, interaction between the author and the reviewer may take place in the form of direct personal contact (such a decision is made only if the openness of the interaction will improve the style and logic of the presentation of the research material).
7. If reviewer points to necessity of making certain adjustments in an article, the article will be sent to the author with the proposal to take into account all comments in preparation of updated version of the article or convincingly to refute them. With the corrected article, the author adds a message that contains answers to all comments and explains all changes have been made in the article. Reviewer re-takes amended version of the article for making decision and preparation of reasoned decision about the possibility of publication. Date of the article receipt for publication is the date of reception by editors of reviewer positive conclusion (or decisions of editorial board) about practicability and
possibility of the article publishing.
8. In case of disagreement with the reviewer opinion, the author of manuscript has the right to provide reasons response to journal editors. In this case, the article is reviewed at the session of editorial board working group. The Editorial Board sends the article for additional or new review by another specialist. In case of inability or unwillingness of the author to accommodate the wishes and comments of reviewer, editorial board reserves the right to reject articles.
9. After receiving of positive reviews manuscripts are sent to literary and technical editing. The author and literary (technical) editor cooperation could be in any form – personally, e-mail, phone. Minor stylistic and formal corrections, which do not affect on the article content, are made by literary (technical) editor without the author agreement.
10. The final decision regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the recommendations of the responsible Issue Editor. Once a decision has been made to accept the article for publication, the Issue Editor notifies the author and indicates the expected publication date.
11. Recommendation about publication of the next issue of journal (with indication of content) is made by Academic Council of Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies and recorded in relevant minutes.
Form of revieweers 2 (conflict of interest)
REVIEWS STRUCTURE ON ARTICLE
(author, title)
1. General description of the content:
• The relevance of the topic
• Originality
• Methodological originality of the approach
• The purity of the experiment and the reproducibility of the results (for applied research)
• The clarity and unambiguity of the findings, their limitations in the text, the adequacy of the substantive provisions of article
2. The quality of the article construction.
• Equipment of scientific apparatus (summary / abstract, bibliography, reference system and the like.)
• The readability of tables and figures, according to the physical meanings of the described regularities and phenomena
• Knowledge of the author (s) state of issue in the study area (link to a new periodical literature, etc.).
3. Comments on the presentation and design of the manuscript.
4. Reasoned conclusion.
Compliance of articles issues to the problematics of the journal section.
5. Recommendations:
- Publication of the article as submitted;
- Revising the article based on the comments (general or specific);
- Irrationality (the impossibility) the publication of the submitted article.
6. Surname, initials, position, academic degree, academic rank of the reviewer.
7. Date signed reviews.
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo an initial screening to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and principles of academic integrity.
Selection of reviewers.
Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or members of the editorial board from among experts in the relevant field who have scholarly publications related to the topic of the manuscript and who have no conflict of interest with the authors. Normally, at least two independent reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript.
Documentation of reviews.
Review reports are submitted in written form (via an electronic review form or a signed document) and are stored in the editorial office. Reviews include reasoned comments and recommendations regarding the manuscript.
