Review procedure

The journal «Contemporary Problems in Metallurgy» adheres to a double-blind peer review policy. The editorial process consists of two stages: initial manuscript screening and peer review.
Stage 1: Initial screening of articles
All submitted manuscripts received by the editorial office will be reviewed by the journal’s editors to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the journal’s subject area and ethical policy, whether it is scientifically sound, and whether it has been properly prepared.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards or ethical policy will be rejected prior to peer review.
At this stage, the originality of the manuscript texts will also be checked using Turnitin (and other specialised software).
Stage Two: Peer Review
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are reviewed using the double-blind review process, whereby neither the author(s) nor the reviewer(s) know each other’s identities, and their communication takes place anonymously via the journal’s editorial office.
The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the work under review, the author’s supervisor, or an employee of the organisation where the author works.
Each manuscript is reviewed by two independent reviewers. Each reviewer is given up to 30 days to review the manuscript. The total duration of the review process (including the time taken by the editors to select reviewers) must not exceed 60 days.
If the editor has reasonable grounds to suspect that a reviewer has breached ethical principles or standards, the recommendations of that reviewer are disregarded by the journal’s editorial board, and another reviewer is engaged to review the manuscript.
Following their review, each reviewer shall submit a review to the editorial board, which shall include an analysis of the manuscript according to the following criteria:
        - the relevance of the scientific article’s topic;
        - the scientific novelty of the research direction;
        - the formulation of the problem/objective and the significance of the results obtained for the further development of theory and practice in this field of knowledge;
        - the adequacy of the research material;
        - consistency of the conclusions with the aims and objectives of the research;
        - quality of source analysis and relevance of the references cited in the manuscript;
        - quality of the article’s presentation: style, terminology, phrasing.
The concluding section of the review must contain well-founded conclusions and a clear recommendation:
        - to decline the authors’ manuscript for publication;
        - to revise the manuscript;
        - the manuscript requires minor amendments;
        - to accept the manuscript without changes.
These recommendations, together with the reviewer’s comments, are sent to the author responsible for correspondence with the journal and are considered by the editor in deciding whether to publish the article.
If one reviewer has provided a negative review and recommended that the editorial board reject the authors’ manuscript, whilst the second reviewer holds the opposite view, a third reviewer is additionally engaged to review the article.
The timeframe for the third reviewer to review the manuscript is up to 15 days.
If two out of three reviewers provide a negative assessment of the manuscript and recommend that the authors be refused publication, the manuscript is withdrawn from further consideration, and the authors are notified accordingly.
If a reviewer notes the need for further revision of the manuscript or the need to make minor changes to the text, the reviewer’s comments and recommendations are sent to the corresponding author by email. The author(s) are given 15 days from the date of receipt of the notification to edit the manuscript.
Upon receiving the reviewer’s recommendations and comments, the author(s) shall take them into account and either revise or rework the article, or submit a reasoned refusal to accept the reviewers’ recommendations (comments).
The revision process may be repeated until the editor makes a reasoned decision to recommend the article for publication. An exception to this is the deliberate disregard of the reviewer’s and editor’s recommendations on two separate occasions.
In such cases, the article is withdrawn from consideration, and the authors are notified accordingly.
Articles that have undergone substantial revision must be re-checked for compliance with the integrity and ethics policy, as well as undergo re-review, within 15 days.
Once all the above procedures have been completed, the author(s) of the article will receive one of the following recommendations from the editor:
        1. Recommend the manuscript for publication.
        2. Recommend that the authors’ manuscript be rejected, stating the reasons for this decision.
Reasons for rejection may include:
        - lack of scientific novelty or its insignificance;
        - the article does not align with the journal’s objectives and specialisation;
        - the submitted manuscript does not comply with publication ethics or formatting requirements;
        - the authors manipulate citations and/or references to primary sources;
        - complete or partial disregard of reviewers’/editor’s comments and the absence of corresponding corrections in the manuscript;
        - unjustified changes to authors’ names, the addition or removal of individuals from the list of authors, or changes to their affiliations during the manuscript editing process;
        - the text of the manuscript contains non-constructive or emotional content, is unfounded, misleads the reader, or constitutes manipulation or defamation;
        - the text of the manuscript discloses confidential information about individuals or legal entities without the relevant consent.
The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the journal’s editorial board. The editorial board’s decision is communicated to the authors.
In cases where one or more editors of the journal «Contemporary Problems in Metallurgy» are the authors of a manuscript submitted for publication, both stages of the editorial process (preliminary selection of manuscripts and peer review) shall be carried out by another member of the editorial board (editor) who was not involved in the research whose results are submitted for publication, and who did not participate in the writing, editing or preliminary discussion of the manuscript. The authors of the manuscript (editors of the journal) must indicate any existing conflict of interest in the text.
The review of a manuscript authored by editors of the journal, and the results of its peer review, are conducted at a meeting of the editorial board, and the decision regarding its publication is taken by a majority vote of the members of the journal’s editorial board. In such cases, the authors of the article do not take part in the vote.
Manuscripts authored by more than three members of the journal’s editorial board are not accepted for consideration and are not published in the journal.