Identifier of the Printed Media R30-03437 HYDRODYNAMICS AND ACOUSTICS is published by the Institute of Hydromechanics of NAS of Ukraine since 2018 QUARTERLY SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ISSN 2616-6135 ◊ e-ISSN 2616-8545 https://doi.org/10.15407/jha

Current issue

PEER REVIEW

PRINCIPLES

The review procedure is mandatory for all articles submitted to the Editorial Office of the Journal. Its task is to eliminate cases of unscrupulous research practices, to promote the selection of high-quality Authors's manuscripts for publication, and to formulate exact, reasoned recommendations to improve their scientific level and presentation style.

Only materials of scientific and/or practical value designed under the Journal's requirements are accepted for publication. If there are comments, the manuscript is returned to the Authors for revision.

Manuscripts are reviewed objectively and impartially. The Journal's Editorial Board has sufficient qualifications to ensure a high-quality and principled assessment of the scientific content of thematic manuscripts, if necessary, involving authoritative independent domestic and foreign specialists. In doing so, consideration is given to maintaining a balance of interests between Authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers, and the institution where the research was conducted.

The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity and confidentiality of manuscript review. The names of reviewers are not disclosed, and the reviews themselves are internal documents with the content accessible only to Authors and members of the Editorial Board.

PROCEDURE AND DEADLINES

After receiving the manuscript, the Editorial Office checks its compliance with the Journal's topic and design rules within one day. If the assessment is positive according to both criteria, the article is sent for review.

After consultation with the Editorial Board, two Reviewers with impeccable academic reputations are appointed by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief within ten days. The basic selection criterion is professionalism and the presence of publications on the subject of the submitted material over the past five years. Reviewers must necessarily represent different institutions or enterprises. As a rule, one of them is independent and is not a member of the Editorial Board. When agreeing to review the manuscript, Reviewers must declare their agreement with the Principles and the absence of a conflict of interest or recuse themselves if there is one.

Reviewing is carried out within no more than two months from the moment the article is received by the Journal Editorial Office. The Reviewer is obliged to provide his/her feedback in a timely manner. The review in printed form must contain the date and the original signature, certified by the seal of the institution where the reviewer works. The review in electronic form (PDF) is signed with a personal qualified digital signature with a qualified time stamp and sent to the Editorial Office together with the validation protocol.

The Editorial Board informs the Authors about the results of the review at the first opportunity. In case of a positive assessment, the manuscript is accepted for publication. If the reviewers express comments on the essence of the research, the Authors are given the opportunity to provide a reasoned response or to revise the manuscript. If the scientific level does not meet the journal standards or signs of violation of academic integrity are detected, the editor-in-chief makes a decision to reject the article. The procedure for considering conflict situations is outlined in the Guidlines for Authors.

The Executive Secretary is responsible for monitoring compliance with the review deadlines and procedures, and is obliged to promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief and Authors about its progress. Electronic and printed copies of reviews are stored by the Journal's Editorial Office for three years.

KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REVIEW

Reviewers should clearly and reasonedly express their attitude, be polite and constructive in their recommendations. The review covers the following basic issues:

• Correspondence of the article's title to its topic and content.
• Compliance of the content with the abstract and keywords.
• Scientific novelty, originality, significance of the results.
• Compliance with the requirements of scientific integrity.
• Relevance and validity of research methods.
• Relevance and completeness of tables and figures.
• Relevance, topicality and completeness of the cited literature.
• Clarity, reasoning and completeness of the conclusions.

The review ends with a conclusion:

• The article is recommended for publication.
• The article needs further revision (substantial revision).
• The article has been rejected (unconditionally or with the right to resubmit).