Technologies and Engineering

To maintain the high academic and theoretical standards of the "Technologies and Engineering", all submitted manuscripts undergo mandatory peer review. Its primary purpose is to ensure an impartial expert assessment of each submission, to select only high-quality research, and to verify that articles comply with academic, ethical and stylistic norms. Reviewers are required to act objectively and follow the guidelines set out in the Publication Ethics section.

1. Principle of anonymity

All manuscripts are evaluated through a double-blind review process, which means that:

• reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities;
• authors do not know who has reviewed their work.

2. Eligibility of a manuscript for review

Before a manuscript is sent for expert assessment, the Editorial Office checks:

• whether the content corresponds to the journal’s scope;
• compliance with the requirements specified in the Terms of Publication;
• correct formatting according to the Formatting Guidelines;
• proper observance of copyright and authorship rules.

Only manuscripts that pass this initial screening proceed to the review stage.

3. Initial editorial assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or their deputy conducts a preliminary evaluation of each submission. If the manuscript meets the thematic focus of the journal and fulfils the basic requirements, the technical editor:

• assigns a unique registration code to the manuscript;
• removes all information that could reveal the author’s identity.

4. Submission to experts

The anonymised manuscript is sent to:

1. a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant academic area;
2. two external, independent reviewers.

External review involves doctors of science from Ukraine and abroad who specialise in the article’s field of study. Reviewers:

• must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author;
• must decline the review if any potential conflict of interest exists.

5. Evaluation criteria

During the review, the expert assesses:

• the relevance of the content to the stated topic;
• the novelty and topicality of the research problem;
• the justification of the study’s practical significance;
• the potential value of the findings for the academic community.

6. Reviewer’s conclusion

When making a recommendation, the reviewer selects one of the following options:

• accept for publication;
• accept after minor revision;
• accept after major revision;
• reject.

If the article requires revisions or is not recommended for publication, the reviewer must provide a detailed justification. All review reports, either in written or electronic form, are kept by the Editorial Office for three years from the publication date of the relevant journal issue.

7. Communication with authors

Authors receive the editorial decision along with anonymised reviewer comments. If revisions are requested:

• authors make the required changes;
• the revised manuscript is returned to the reviewers;
• reviewers may request further amendments.

Even after revisions, a manuscript may still be rejected if the reviewers consider the changes insufficient.

8. Final decision

The final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief. They do not take part in evaluating submissions authored by themselves, their family members, or colleagues, or in cases where any personal interest exists. Such manuscripts undergo the standard independent review process without the editor’s involvement.

Review timeframes

• Typical review period: 2–4 weeks
• Average time to first decision: 4–8 weeks