For Reviewers


Review tasks

Ethical principles

Basic requirements for articles

Peer review procedure

Who can be a reviewer

Requirements for review

Review samples


Review tasks

Basic tasks of the process of reviewing are:

- to determine whether the paper subject complies with the tasks and scientific directions of the journal "Cybernetics and Computer Technologies" ?

- to determine whether the paper contains new original results ?

- to determine whether the paper can be accepted for publication ?

- to help author in increasing significance of the paper;

- to help author in a clearer presentation of main ideas and results of the paper;

- to help author in improving the paper structure;

- to assess the scientific level of the paper.


Ethical principles

The paper assessment should be unbiased and based on the following principles:

- the reviewed paper should be treated as confidential document;

- the reviewer remarks and assessment of the paper must be well argued;

- personal critics of the author is unacceptable;

- the paper content should not be used in the reviewer own interests;

- in case the reviewer considers that he is not qualified enough to assess the article or cannot be objective, then he should refuse to review;

- the reviewer should stick to the main principles formulated by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


Basic requirements for articles

Articles that do not meet Requirements for Authors are not allowed to be reviewed.

Scientific papers should include:

- problem statement and its relation with topical scientific directions and important practical tasks;

- analysis of recent publications where this problem was first formulated and examined and which results are used by the author, clearly define no-solved parts of general problem, the paper is dedicated to;

- main content of research material together with full justification of obtained scientific results;

- conclusion and perspectives of further research in this field.


Peer review procedure

The paper prepared in accordance with the rules is directed to the reviewer in a week upon its receipt.

The response of the reviewer without indicating his name is forwarded to the corresponding author.

If the reviewer does not deny the possibility of accepting the article for publication, then the authors re-submit the version of the article, corrected for the reviewer's comments, and in a separate document inform about the corrections made and give explanations about the comments of the reviewer, which were left without correction. The article may additionally be reviewed by editorial board members.

The final decision on acceptance of the article for publication or its rejection is made by the Editorial Board.


Who can be a reviewer

According to the requirements for Ukrainian scientific professional editions (on October 1, 2021), a scientist can be a reviewer if he (or she):

- has a science degree;

- carries out research on the specialty of the article;

- has at least three publications referred by Scopus or Web of Science in the last five years, and/or three publications included into the list of Ukrainian scientific professional editions in categories A or B.


Requirements for review

The review should answer the questions listed above in the Review Tasks.

Additionally, the review should answer the following questions:

- is the purpose of the article clearly defined ?

- is the purpose of the article sufficiently motivated ?

- have the authors achieved the declared goal ?

- are the materials presented scientifically relevant and/or practically useful ?

- have the authors made a sufficient review of the publications regarding the current state of the research on the topic under consideration ?

- which parts of the article should be explained in more detail (and more clearly), and which should be reduced ?

- what are the comments on the design of the article, the presence of errors in the presentation ?

- are the results and conclusions correctly formulated ?

The reviewer must provide their ORCID code, Scopus Author ID or Web of Science ID.

The reviewer signs the review with a simple or digital electronic signature and sends it to the Editorial Board.


Review samples

Review template, Sample 1, Sample 2, Sample 3.






© Website and Design. 2019-2024,

V.M. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics of the NAS of Ukraine,

National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.