The review (expert assessment) procedure is carried out to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the journal "Physicochemical Mechanics of Materials".The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication, to provide an objective assessment of the quality of the submitted material, as well as to determine the article compliance with scientific, literary, and ethical standards. All reviewers must be objective and adhere to the provisions of the Publication Ethics section.

  1. The editorial board of the journal "Physicochemical Mechanics of Materials" adheres to "double-blind" (anonymous) review: 
    • the reviewer does not know the authors’ personal data;
    • the authors do not know the reviewer’s personal data. 
  2. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are checked for compliance with the requirements posted in the Authors’ Instruction section. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with editorial requirements are admitted to the review process.  
  3. The primary examination of a scientific article is conducted by the deputy editor-in-chief. Submitted materials must comply with the journal’s subject matter.    
  4. If the requirements for journal publication are met, the article manuscript is given a registration code and information about the author or authors is removed from it (the article is coded).  
  5. The coded (anonymous) article is sent by e-mail to:
    • a member of the editorial board responsible for the scientific field of the article;
    • to an external reviewer;
    • Ukrainian and foreign scientists specializing in the same scientific field as the authors of the article are involved in the external review. On behalf of the editors, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. An anonymous article is attached to the letter. Reviews signed by the reviewer are stored in the editorial office.
  6. In the process of reviewing scientific articles, reviewers highlight the following issues: 
    • compliance of the article content with the topic stated in the title;
    • relevance and novelty of the scientific problem discussed in the article; 
    • justification of the practical importance of the conducted research;
    • the importance for a wide circle of readers. 
  7. The members of the editorial board and external reviewers to whom the coded article was sent provide their opinion (one of the options):  
    • to recommend an article for publication; 
    • to recommend an article for publication after correcting minor remarks and comments;  
    • to recommend an article for publication after  introduction of significant changes; 
    • do not recommend an article for publication.

    In case of refusal or the need for revision, the reviewer must provide a written, well-reasoned explanation of the reasons for such a decision. An independent expert in the field of research must review the manuscript within three weeks of receiving the article.

  8. The decision of the editorial board is sent to the authors. Articles to be revised are sent together with the review text without identifying the reviewers. The corrected version of the article is sent for re-reviewing, in the process of which the reviewers can ask for additional corrections. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article, and if the reviewers find the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.
  9. The final decision on recommending an article for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the reviews received and the results of checking manuscripts for plagiarism.

If the article is accepted for publication, the editorial board prepares the journal issue in accordance with the technological process.

In case of the article rejection the editors of the journal do not discuss this with the authors.