The review process

Peer Review Process for Scientific Articles

This regulation governs the peer review process for scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the scientific journal "Problems of Informatization and Management".

1. General Provisions

The purpose of peer review is to ensure the high quality of scientific publications through their independent expert evaluation.

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers have information about each other.

The review of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board and/or with the involvement of independent external reviewers—experts in the relevant field of knowledge who hold an academic degree and have research experience in the subject area of the article.

Both domestic and foreign scientists can be involved in the peer review process.

2. Ethical Principles

Reviewers are obliged to:

  • adhere to the principles of academic integrity;

  • ensure the confidentiality of materials;

  • be objective, impartial, and provide reasoned conclusions;

  • inform the editorial board of any potential conflict of interest.

The editorial board of the journal adheres to international standards of publication ethics, in particular, the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3. Initial Editorial Control

All submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editorial board, which includes:

  • checking compliance with the journal's scope;

  • checking the formatting according to the journal's guidelines;

  • checking for academic plagiarism;

  • evaluating the overall scientific level of the material.

Articles that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for peer review.

4. Peer Review Procedure

After passing the initial control:

  • The article is assigned a registration code.

  • Information about the author(s) is removed from the manuscript (anonymization).

  • The coded article is transferred to the responsible member of the editorial board in the relevant scientific field.

  • The article is sent to at least two reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate:

  • the relevance of the topic;

  • scientific novelty;

  • the validity of the research methods;

  • the reliability of the results;

  • practical significance;

  • the quality of the presentation of the material.

5. Peer Review Results

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:

  • recommend for publication;

  • recommend for publication after revision;

  • reject the article.

In case of remarks or rejection, the reviewer is obliged to provide a reasoned written explanation.

The timeframe for preparing a review is usually up to 2–3 weeks.

6. Decision Making

The final decision regarding the publication of the article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the reviews.

  • The decision of the editorial board is sent to the author(s).

  • If revision is necessary, the authors are provided with the reviewers' comments without disclosing their identities.

7. Revision and Re-evaluation

A revised article may be sent for re-evaluation.

In case of a repeated negative conclusion, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

8. Confidentiality

The editorial board guarantees the anonymity of reviewers and the confidentiality of all materials submitted for consideration.

9. Final Provisions

The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article at any stage in case of detecting violations of academic integrity or non-compliance with the journal's requirements.

The editorial board does not enter into discussions with authors regarding rejected articles.