Peer review process

All articles submitted to the editorial board, except for informational notices, are subject to peer review. The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the rigorous selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The peer review procedure is aimed at the most objective evaluation of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal, and includes a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Only those articles that are of scientific value and contribute to solving current problems and tasks are accepted for publication. Special consideration is also given to the compliance of the manuscript with the rules for preparing articles for publication in the scientific journal Power Engineering: Economics, Technique, Ecology.

To improve the quality of the peer review process, independent experts are involved and provide their opinions in writing. According to the journal’s editorial policy, the peer review procedure is anonymous for both reviewers and authors. The main purpose of the peer review procedure is to prevent poor research practice and to ensure coordination and balance among the interests of authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers, and the institutions where the research was conducted. Reviewers evaluate the scientific level, novelty, and originality of the submitted article, the compliance of the article’s content with the topic stated in the title, the thematic areas of the journal, the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission of Ukraine, and compliance with current copyright legislation. In addition, reviewers determine whether the article complies with the principles of ethics in scientific publishing and provide recommendations for eliminating possible violations.

Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and contain information that must not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript under review or use knowledge of its contents prior to publication. The review process is based on confidentiality: information about the article (dates of receipt, content, stages and specifics of the review, reviewers’ comments, and the final decision regarding publication) is not disclosed to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only in cases where there are signs or allegations of inaccuracy or falsification of the article’s materials. With the consent of the authors and reviewers, reviewers’ comments may be published together with the article. In any case, the author of the reviewed manuscript is given an opportunity to ознакомиться with the review text, especially if the author disagrees with the reviewer’s conclusions.

Manuscript Review Procedure

The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the policy of the journal Power Engineering: Economics, Technique, Ecology and the rules for preparing articles and scientific abstracts for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not admitted for further consideration, and their authors are informed accordingly.

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are assigned, according to their subject area, to two reviewers. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Power Engineering: Economics, Technique, Ecology or by his/her deputies. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief, certain articles by distinguished scholars, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard review procedure.

Reviewers may include both members of the editorial board of the scientific journal Power Engineering: Economics, Technique, Ecology and external highly qualified specialists with profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field, usually Doctors of Sciences and Professors.

After receiving the article for consideration (within 7 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing the materials based on the correspondence of his or her qualifications to the author’s field of research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer must decline the review and notify the editorial board. The latter must then decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

As a rule, within 14 days the reviewer makes a conclusion regarding the possibility of publishing the article. The review period may be changed in each individual case in order to ensure the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials.

Peer review is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind review, in which neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other’s identity. Interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place either via e-mail through the executive secretary of the journal Power Engineering: Economics, Technique, Ecology or through the Open Journal Systems platform on the journal’s website at http://energy.kpi.ua. At the reviewer’s request and with the approval of the editorial board, interaction between the author and the reviewer may take place in an open format if such openness would improve the style and logic of presentation of the research material.

For all articles submitted for review, the originality of the author’s text is determined using appropriate software (StrikePlagiarism system).

After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer completes a standardized form containing final recommendations. In preparing this form, generally accepted recommendations on the sequence and organization of the review process were used and generalized. The editorial office informs the author of the review results by e-mail.

If the reviewer indicates that certain revisions are necessary, the article is sent back to the author with a proposal either to take the comments into account when preparing the revised version or to refute them with reasoned arguments. Together with the revised article, the author submits a letter containing responses to all comments and explaining all changes made to the article. The corrected version is resubmitted to the reviewer for decision-making and preparation of a reasoned conclusion regarding the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is considered to be the date on which the editorial office receives a positive recommendation from the reviewer (or a decision of the editorial board) on the advisability and possibility of publishing the article.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, the author has the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review by another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in cases where the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes and comments of the reviewers. At the reviewer’s request, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.

The final decision regarding the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or his/her deputies), and, if necessary, by a meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After a decision is made to accept the article for publication, the technical secretary informs the author and indicates the expected publication date.

In the event of a positive decision regarding publication, the article enters the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in the order of priority and relevance. In some cases, by decision of the editorial board, the article may be published out of turn in the nearest issue of the journal.

The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. Minor stylistic or formal corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the author’s approval. If necessary or at the author’s request, the manuscript in the form of the article layout may be returned to the author for approval.

Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the article materials rests with the author of the article. The author and the reviewer bear responsibility for the accuracy of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations, and the scientific and practical level of the article.

Handling papers from editorial board members

The member(s) of the editorial board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. This represents a potential conflict of interest, especially in cases of submissions from decision-making editors. 

During the review process, submitters will not engage in the selection of reviewers and decision process. The review process will be supervised and decisions made by a senior editor who will act independently of other editors. In some cases, the review process will be handled by an outside independent expert to minimize possible bias in reviewing submissions from members of the editorial board.

In order to ensure transparent and impartial treatment of such manuscripts, they will be subject to the following:

(1) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will be subject to the double blind peer review and the Editor(s) will not have access to information regarding their papers beyond that available to all authors.

(2) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will be reviewed by a minimum of two external peer reviewers.

(3) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts are treated as all submissions to the journal and may be subject to the full range of editorial decisions: reject without peer review, multiple revisions, reject after revision and/or accept.

(4) If accepted, member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will carry a note to the reader showing how transparent the reviewing process had been.