Verification and approval of the article is carried out in next stages involving different procedures and criteria.

Title and abstract approval

• Does the article topic correspond to the conference topics?
• Is the article topic chosen correctly?
• Title and abstract – content, grammar, length, terminology.

If the article title and abstract does not meet these criteria, the Editor-in-Chief may reject it or return it with remarks for corrections.

Full text approval

• Does the full text match the title and abstract?
• Does the layout match the conference template?
• Does the article contain the following mandatory elements: abstract, introduction, argument, conclusion, references, title and abstract in English (Ukrainian, Russian)?
  • Is the abstract sufficiently informative?
  • Does the article contain adequate sources/references, state-of-the-problem analysis, purpose and tasks of the study?
  • Does the article contain experimental confirmation of the corresponding theoretical/numerical methods/models, results and discussion?
  • Does the conclusion summarize the results, the advantages of the method used, and the application areas?
  • Does the reference list contain adequate literary sources - such as quantity, topicality and representativeness?
  • Do the figures, charts, and tables meet the required quality? Are they numbered correctly?

If the article meets the criteria, the Editor-in-Chief directs it for review.

• Very minor changes, such as corrections to language or layout, can be made by the Conference Secretariat. In such case, the edited version will be returned to the author for approval.
• If the changes are more serious, the Editor-in-Chief returns the article with remarks for revision.

Review process

Each article goes through a review process. Reviewing is held in confidence by the principles of double-blind reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know each other. The interaction between author and reviewers occurs in a way of correspondence by e-mail through the Conference Secretariat.

The Editor-in-Chief assigns reviewers both from Scientific Committee and external qualified professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific area: DSc., Professors. The reviewers meet the following criteria:

• They have publications with an impact factor or impact rank.
• Reviewers are not within the same organization as the article authors.

After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standardized form (Article review), which contains a summary of recommendations. Conference Secretariat notify the author about the results of reviewing by e-mail.

If the reviewer has comments on the article and/or proposes corrections, the Editor-in-Chief returns the article for revision, giving the deadline and applying the review without disclosing his identity of the reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief approves corrected reports when the remarks are minor or sent them back to the reviewer – in case of serious remarks.

Upon completion of the review process, reports and reviews are submitted to the Editorial Board.

Editorial Board

The Editorial Board makes the final decision whether to publish or reject the article. Decisions of the board are based on the following criteria:

• The recommendations and remarks in reviews.
• The opinion of each Editorial Board member, formed upon analysis of the article, the reviews and the opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editorial Board may require additional review of any article.