Peer Review Process

The peer review procedure is conducted to ensure the high scientific and theoretical standards of  Technical Mechanics. Its purpose is to carefully select manuscripts for publication, provide an objective evaluation of the submitted material, and assess its compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. Reviewers are expected to remain impartial and follow the principles outlined in the Publication Ethics section.

The journal applies a double-blind review system:

  • reviewers do not know the authors’ identities;
  • authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.

Review Stages

  1. Initial screening – the Editor-in-Chief or the Vice Eitor-in-Chief checks whether the article fits the journal’s scope and formatting requirements.
  2. Coding of the manuscript – the technical editor assigns a registration code and removes author details.
  3. Distribution for review – the anonymized manuscript is sent via email to:
  • a member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field;
  • an external reviewer (Ukrainian or foreign expert in the relevant area).

Each reviewer receives the anonymized article along with a standard review form. Signed reviews (conventional or electronic) are stored in the editorial office for three years after publication of the issue containing the article.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

  • whether the content matches the stated title;
  • the relevance and novelty of the research problem;
  • the justification of practical significance;
  • the value of the article for a broad readership.

Reviewer Decisions

Reviewers select one of the following recommendations:

  • publish;
  • revise;
  • reject.

If revisions or rejection are advised, reviewers must provide a written, reasoned explanation. Manuscripts should be reviewed within two weeks of receipt.

Editorial Board Actions

  • Authors receive the decision along with reviewer comments (without revealing reviewer identities).
  • Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review, during which additional corrections can be requested.
  • Revisions do not guarantee acceptance; unsatisfactory changes may lead to rejection.
  • The final decision is made at an Editorial Board meeting, taking into account reviewer reports and plagiarism checks.
  • Accepted articles proceed to publication preparation.
  • Rejected articles are not subject to further discussion with authors.