About the Journal
Peer Review Process
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS
The process of reviewing is aimed at improving the quality of published materials and overcome prejudice and injustice in declining or accepting articles. All papers are peer-reviewed in order to select the articles meeting the high standards of the Journal “Proceedings of the National Aviation University”.
1. All submitted papers should be reviewed by an expert at the author's place of work or study.
At this stage, the “open peer review” is used by the official reviewer - an external specialist of the relevant scientific profile (Doctor of Science). Such a review should contain information about the reliability of results, their relevance and novelty, as well as practical value with recommendations and suggestions for publication of the manuscript.
2. This review together with the manuscript, that meets the requirements and standards for publication of the journal, should be submitted by the author to the Editorial Board to undergo the reviewing process.
3. The Editor-in-Chief determines the paper's compliance with the journal's profile, requirements for registration and sends it for the review process carried out by members of the Editorial Board and independent experts (Doctor of Science and Doctor of Philosophy) in relevant fields. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief individual articles of prominent scientists, as well as specially invited articles may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
4. The manuscripts are checked for plagiarism. For all papers provided for review, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined by means of the appropriate software.
5. The members of the editorial board of the scientific journal, as well as third-party highly skilled experts with profound professional knowledge and experience in the specific field of research, are usually involved in the reviewing process.
6. Normally, the reviewer within 14 days makes a decision about the possibility of printing the article. The review specifies the following issues:
- correspondence of the paper's content to the given topic in the title;
- evaluation of the relevance of the manuscript's content;
- scientific novelty of research;
- positive aspects, drawbacks, corrections and suggestions that must be taken into consideration by the author of the paper;
- conclusion concerning the publication of this article:
a) accept submission- the article is ready for publication and accepted without changes;
b) revisions required – accepted if an author will take into account the reviewers' remarks, comments and suggestions;
c) decline submission – the article does not correspond to the requirements of the edition.
7. The Editors support international high standards of the peer review process transparency and confidentiality, therefore practice the double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names. The authors can cooperate only with the assigned Section Editor
8. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain corrections to the manuscript, it is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments and remarks when preparing an updated version of the paper or arguably to refute them. The article revised by the author should be accompanied by appropriate references that contain answers to all comments and remarks and explain all the changes that were made in the paper. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a motivated conclusion about the possibility of its further publication.
9. The final decision for publication is done by the Editor-in-Chief based on the recommendations of reviewers and the scope of the Journal.
10. Reviews are reserved by the editorial board for 3 years.
11. After the editorial board decides to admit the article to the publication, the author shall be informed about it. Finally, the electronic review form covering all aspects concerning the publication is sent to the authors.
