The review process

The purpose of review is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the scientific journal "Electronics and Control Systems" by evaluating materials by highly qualified experts.

Type of review: Double-blind peer review: The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by independent reviewers.

Reviewer selection criteria: Availability of a PhD or PhD degree; availability of publications on the topic of the reviewed article; availability of publications in publications indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science (three publications over the past five years); absence of a conflict of interest with the author(s); no more than one reviewer from the author's institution; involvement of international reviewers (if possible).

A reviewer cannot be a co-author of the author of the article within the past 3 years.

All reviewers must adhere to the requirements for ethics in scientific publications and be objective and unbiased.

Review procedure:

Scientific articles that have passed the initial control of the editorial office, including compliance with the topic and checking for plagiarism (using StrikePlagiarism), are allowed for review.

If the above requirements are met, the technical editor provides the article with a registration code and removes information about the author(s) from it (article coding).

The coded article is sent by e-mail to the member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific direction of the article content.

The editorial board member who received the coded article fills out a standard form (Link to the form) and selects one of the recommendation options:

Accept without changes (accept)

Accept after minor revisions – without re-review

Accept after major revisions – with re-review

Reject with the possibility of re-submission (reject and resubmit)

Reject (reject)

In case of disagreement between the reviewers, a third reviewer may be appointed or the decision is made by the editorial board.

Review terms

Total term from submission to first final decision: 2-4 weeks

Term for revision: 14 days

Term for re-review: 10-14 days

Documentation forms

Reviews are drawn up in a standard form provided by the editorial office

All reviews are stored in the editorial office archive for 3 years

Reviews are provided upon request by the Ministry of Education and Science or other authorized bodies

Decision-making

  1. Reviewers' recommendations are sent by e-mail to the technical editor.
  2. In the event of refusal or the need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision.
  3. The final decision on the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviews received.
  4. The editorial office's decision is sent to the author(s). Articles subject to revision are sent to the author(s) together with the text of the review containing specific recommendations for the revision of the article. The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the journal editorial board.
  5. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

The editorial board does not enter into a discussion with the authors of rejected articles

Appeal:

The author has the right to appeal the decision on rejection within 10 days. The appeal is considered by an independent member of the editorial board.

After the manuscript of the article is accepted for publication, it undergoes literary editing and final amendments by the author of the article. The editorial board of the Journal reserves the right not to accept the manuscript of the article for further consideration if the proofreader has discovered improper literary edits or the author has made significant changes to the manuscript that were not previously considered by the reviewers.

REVIEWER FORM

 

Questions for reviewers 

 

Yes/ No

 

N o t e

Is the topic scientifically relevant considering the journal profile?

 

 

Is the topic scientifically relevant and useful?

 

 

The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article

 

 

The abstract is concise and relevant

 

 

The key words provide adequate index entry for the article

 

 

The introduction contains a clearly stated objectives

 

 

Is the scientific argument logical and persuasive

 

 

Are the empirical research results methodologically correctly presented? Give possible suggestions in case you think

Some amendments and refinements are needed.

 

 

Conclusions illustrate the research results, findings and recommendations showing what is new and giving suggestionsfor future research

 

 

Should some parts of the article be shortened, deleted, extended or refined?

 

 

Would you recommend some refinements in terms of styleor language?

 

 

The references are full and grounded?

 

 

Is the article in compliance with the Instructions for authors,i.e. are the abstract, key words, literature, references and table and figure marks written upon the instructions

 

 

Reviewer’s additional opinions, remarks and recommendations:

Recommendation for the editor (circle one):

  • to published without changes 
  • to published after minor changes 
  • to rejected 

Confidential remarks for the editor: