The review process at the Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University is aimed at ensuring high scientific quality, adherence to academic standards, and ethical norms. The main goal is to select for publication studies that present scientific novelty and have theoretical or practical significance. The journal employs a double-blind review process, ensuring the anonymity of both parties involved.

Before a manuscript is sent for expert evaluation, the editorial team conducts several preliminary checks:

• compliance with the "Formatting Guidelines" and "Submission Terms and Author's Rights" sections;
• preliminary review by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor;
• elimination of potential conflict of interest during the initial evaluation;
• verification of relevance to the journal’s scope;
• technical anonymisation of the manuscript and assignment of a registration number.

The anonymised manuscript is then submitted to:

• a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field;
• two independent external experts (doctoral-level scientists) working in the same field as the author.

Reviewers:

• must not be affiliated with the author's institution;
• must have no conflict of interest;
• provide a professional evaluation of the manuscript based on their scientific expertise.

During the review, experts consider:

• the manuscript's relevance to the declared topic;
• the scientific relevance and novelty of the work;
• the justification of the conclusions and practical significance of the research;
• the potential contribution to the development of the scientific field and its benefit to the readers.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

• acceptance for publication;
• acceptance after minor revisions;
• acceptance after major revisions;
• rejection of the manuscript.

In case of rejection or need for revisions, reviewers provide a reasoned explanation for their decision. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years after the publication of the relevant issue.

The author is notified of the editorial decision and receives the reviewers' comments without identification of the experts.

Articles requiring revisions are resubmitted. If necessary, reviewers may request additional clarifications or changes. Revisions do not guarantee a positive outcome – if the changes are deemed unsatisfactory, the article may be rejected.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the conclusions of the reviewers and makes the final decision regarding publication. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in evaluating works authored by themselves, their relatives, or colleagues. In such cases, the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and the review process is conducted independently.

Review duration:

• Typical expert evaluation time: 2-4 weeks.
• Average time to the first decision: 4-8 weeks.