Peer Review Process

REVIEW PROCESS

Reviewing (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is carried out to ensure a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal “Optoelectronic information–power technologies”. The purpose of 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 section.

  1. The journal “Optoelectronic information–power technologies” adheres to double-blind (anonymous) review:
  • reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors;
  • authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.
  1. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements posted in the Publication Conditions section. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the General Requirements section that have passed the initial editorial control and copyright check are allowed to the review stage.
  2. The primary examination of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or his 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 deputy or another member of the editorial board who does not have a conflict of interest. The materials sent must correspond to the topic of the journal. If the journal's publication requirements are met, the article is transferred to the technical editor, who provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author or authors from it.
  3. An anonymous article is sent by e-mail:
  • to a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article;
  • to two external independent experts (reviewers).

External review involves Ukrainian and foreign doctors of science specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article. 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.

  1. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues: correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title; relevance and novelty of the scientific problem considered in the article; justification of the practical significance of the research; value for a wide range of readers.
  2. Reviewers fill out standard review forms and choose one of the options:
  • recommend the article for publication;
  • recommend the article for publication after minor revisions;
  • recommend the article for publication after significant revisions;
  • do not recommend the article for publication.

If the reviewers' recommendation for the article is rejection or revision, they must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. Independent experts in the field of research must review the manuscript within two weeks of receiving the article. Reviews signed by reviewers with a regular or electronic signature are stored by the editorial office for 3 years from the date of publication of the journal issue in which the reviewed article is published.

  1. The editorial board's decision is sent to the authors. Articles that are subject to revision are sent together with the text of the review without identifying the reviewers. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review, during which the reviewers may request additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, then the article will be rejected.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief analyzes the reviewers' reviews and, based on them, makes a final decision on publication, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the journal's requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in making decisions regarding articles authored by him/herself, his/her family members or colleagues, as well as materials related to products or services in which he/she has a personal interest. All such articles undergo independent review without the participation of the editor or his/her research group. The final decision on these articles is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Typical peer review period 2-4 weeks

Average time to first decision 4-8 weeks