The peer review procedure for manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Proceedings of the Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics of the NAS of Ukraine” consists of three main stages:
internal review — preliminary assessment of the manuscript by the editorial office;
external review — evaluation of the manuscript by independent experts;
decision-making regarding publication.
All submitted manuscripts are checked by the handling editor in the relevant field for compliance with the aims, scope, and editorial policy of the collection. Manuscripts that do not meet the scope, editorial policy, or editorial standards are rejected prior to peer review. Editorial forewords and correction notices are not subject to peer review.
Manuscripts that do not meet formatting and structural requirements are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If the author does not respond within 30 calendar days, the manuscript is considered withdrawn from consideration.
Manuscripts with a significant level of text overlap detected via StrikePlagiarism.com are returned for revision. If plagiarism is identified, the manuscript is rejected without the right of resubmission.
After all internal checks, the manuscript is sent for external (expert) review.
All submitted articles undergo single-blind peer review by one external reviewer who is an expert in the relevant scientific field.
Members of the editorial board recommend reviewers who have expertise in the subject area and relevant publications. Editorial board members may also act as reviewers.
Reviewers are expected to follow best international peer review practices, including the Recommendations of the European Association of Science Editors, Web of Science Academy, and the requirements of this journal.
Reviewers must promptly inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest. They must also maintain confidentiality, including not using or reproducing the manuscript in whole or in part and not disclosing the review invitation.
When preparing a review, the reviewer must respond to the questions specified in the reviewer template.
If reviewers select responses such as “no, requires minor revision” or “no, requires major revision,” they must provide reasoned comments and clear guidance for improvement.
Editors reserve the right not to forward comments that are subjective, offensive, or inconsistent with the stated requirements and criteria.
Editors act as intermediaries in all communications between authors and reviewers. If consensus cannot be reached, additional reviewers may be invited.
The handling editor has the right to return a review for revision if the reviewer has not complied with the requirements set out in the Guidelines for Reviewers, or if the review contains ambiguous comments. In the event of significant concerns regarding a reviewer, the editor has the right to remove that reviewer from the list of individuals to whom the journal turns for reviews.
Reviewers do not carry out structural or linguistic editing of the manuscript, but, where necessary, inform the authors and the journal’s editors of editorial issues in the relevant section of the review.
Possible reviewer recommendations:
accept;
accept after minor revisions (authors have five days to make minor amendments in line with the reviewers’ comments);
accept after major revisions (authors have two weeks to make substantial revisions to their manuscript);
reject with invitation to resubmit (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be invited to resubmit the article after making substantial revisions to the content);
reject (manuscript will be rejected without the right to resubmit the same manuscript if it has serious shortcomings and/or does not contain original scientific findings).
If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) with reviewer comments and editorial recommendations.
Authors must submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewer comments, highlighting all changes in the manuscript.
The handling editor evaluates the revisions or may send the manuscript for a second round of review. Reviewers may be asked to assess whether their initial recommendations were addressed.
Reviewers must provide clear, reasoned, polite, and constructive feedback.
Authors must respond to all reviewer comments point-by-point. The total review period must not exceed 3 months from the date the manuscript is sent to the reviewer.
The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of peer review.
The editorial office considers reviewer comments, but the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Authors may appeal a rejection. The procedure is described in the “Complaints and Appeals” section of the editorial policy.
The decision on publication is made based on independent peer review, taking into account scientific quality, relevance, novelty, and alignment with the journal’s scope.
Possible editorial decisions:
accept;
accept after revision;
reject.
If necessary, an additional reviewer may be involved. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized representative.
The editorial office ensures objectivity, confidentiality, and adherence to academic integrity at all stages.
The editorial office ensures that peer review reports are stored for at least 3 years after the final decision, in compliance with confidentiality and personal data protection principles.
Reviewer selection is based on professional competence, academic integrity, and alignment of expertise with the manuscript topic. The editorial office follows these criteria:
1. Academic Qualifications
Relevant academic degree (PhD / Candidate of Sciences / Doctor of Sciences).
Active research in the manuscript’s field.
Publications in peer-reviewed journals (preferably indexed internationally).
2. Professional Competence
Deep expertise in the subject matter.
Relevant research experience.
Preferably prior peer review experience.
3. Publication Activity
Recent publications (last 3–5 years).
Participation in research projects.
Citation metrics (if available).
4. Independence and Conflict of Interest
No recent co-authorship with the authors.
No personal relationships affecting objectivity.
Willingness to declare conflicts of interest.
5. Academic Integrity
Objectivity, impartiality, and confidentiality.
Adherence to ethical standards.
No misuse of manuscript content.
6. Timeliness and Responsibility
Ability to meet deadlines.
Provision of structured and constructive reviews.
Communication with the editorial office if delays occur.
7. Language Proficiency
Proficiency in the manuscript language (Ukrainian / English).
Ability to clearly articulate feedback.
8. Reputation and Professional Ethics
No record of academic misconduct.
Positive reputation in the academic community.
9. Institutional and Geographic Diversity (recommended)
Inclusion of reviewers from different institutions.
Preferably involvement of international experts.