Peer review (expert evaluation) is conducted to maintain a high scholarly and theoretical standard for the journal Computer Technologies of Printing. The objective of the review process is to ensure a rigorous selection of manuscripts, provide an objective assessment of the quality of submitted material, and determine its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must remain objective and adhere to the provisions outlined in the Publication Ethics section.
The journal Computer Technologies of Printing follows a double-blind (anonymous) peer review policy:
- Reviewers are not provided with the personal data of the authors;
- Authors are not provided with the personal data of the reviewers.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo a compliance check according to the requirements specified in the Submission Guidelines. Only manuscripts that meet the General Requirements, pass initial editorial screening, and clear plagiarism and copyright checks are admitted to the peer review stage.
The initial evaluation is performed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a personal interest in the publication (as an author, co-author, or through family/professional ties with the authors), the evaluation is conducted by the Deputy Editor or another member of the Editorial Board without a conflict of interest. Submitted materials must align with the journal's scope. If the submission meets the criteria, it is forwarded to the Technical Editor, who assigns a registration code and anonymizes the manuscript.
The anonymized manuscript is sent via email to:
- A member of the Editorial Board responsible for the specific scientific direction of the paper;
- Two external independent experts (reviewers).
External reviewers include Ukrainian and international Doctors of Science (PhDs or equivalent) specializing in the same scientific field as the authors. A formal request is sent to the expert along with the anonymized manuscript and a Standard Review Form. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and must be free of any conflicts of interest. During the review process, experts address the following points:
- Correspondence of the article’s content to the title;
- Relevance and novelty of the scientific problem addressed;
- Substantiation of the practical significance of the research;
- Value of the work to a broad audience of readers.
Reviewers complete the standard forms and select one of the following recommendations:
- Accept for publication;
- Accept with minor revisions;
- Accept with major revisions;
- Reject for publication.
If a reviewer recommends rejection or revision, a written, reasoned explanation must be provided. Reviews, signed conventionally or electronically, are archived by the editorial office for three years following the publication of the issue containing the reviewed article. The Editorial Board’s decision is communicated to the authors. Articles requiring revision are sent back with the review text (anonymized). The corrected version is then resubmitted for follow-up review, during which reviewers may request further changes. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance; if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, the manuscript will be rejected.
The Editor-in-Chief analyzes the reviews and makes the final decision on publication, considering all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with journal requirements.
The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decisions regarding manuscripts authored by themselves, family members, or colleagues, nor regarding materials involving products or services in which they have a personal interest. All such articles undergo independent review without the involvement of the Editor or their research group. The final decision for these papers is made by the Deputy Editor.
Typical peer review duration: 2–4 weeks
Average time to first decision: 4–8 weeks