Manuscript review procedure

• 

The review process is a key step in ensuring high scientific quality and maintaining the academic integrity of the journal.

Description of the review type.The Editorial Board of the “Collection ofResearchPapers of the National Mining University” applies the standard of independent double-blind peer-review, which is based on confidentiality. Authors do not know the names of reviewers, and reviewers do not receive information about the authors. The main goal of this type of review is to ensure objectivity of the assessment, avoid conflicts of interest and subjectivity.

Selection of reviewers. The Editorial Board of the journal consists of scholars (Doctor of Science) with significant research achievements and experience in reviewing manuscripts, including those for journals indexed in the scientometric databases Scopus and Web of Science.

The selection is based on the following criteria:

 – professional competence: the reviewer must be a leading specialist in the relevant field and actively engaged in research within the cluster corresponding to the submitted specialization (mining, mechanical engineering, construction, etc.);

– expert level: the process involves specialists with sufficient scientific experience to assess the relevance and innovativeness of the submitted manuscripts;

– absence of conflict of interest: reviewers must not be affiliated with the authors or involved in the submission of the manuscript under review.

Review deadlines. The Editorial Board sends the article to two independent reviewers with a request to return the completed forms within two weeks.

The Editorial Board has established a clear timeline for processing submissions:at least one month must pass between the date of first submission and the date of publication after review.For example, if an article is submitted on January 1, the review process and revision of comments should be completed by February 1^st.

Evaluation criteria. According to the establishedreview form, manuscripts are evaluated on a four-level scale (Excellent, Good, Poor, Comments) based on the following criteria:

 – structure and summary (abstract): assessment of relevance to the topic, clarity of objectives, and quality of the abstract (novelty and practical value);

– content and Figures: evaluation of scientific novelty, practical significance of results, and the clarity and appropriateness of tables and figures;

– scientific ethics: properformatting of references and primary sources in accordance with the requirements, their compliance with the presented material;

– text quality: writingstyle, terminology, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Documentation forms and decision-making

Based on the review results, the reviewer completes a standardized evaluation form and selects one of the final decisions:

Decision	Consequences for the author
Accept	The article is recommended for publication based on positive reviews.
Refine	Authors must revise the manuscript and address the reviewers’ comments, after which the material may be resubmitted for re-review.
Reject	The article receives a negative evaluation due to non-compliance with the requirements or low quality; the authors receive an official notification.
Recommend to another journal	Used if the topic does not fall within the scope of the journal.