The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process. Editorial Workflow occurs according to generally accepted recommendations for the consistency and organization of the Review Process (Review Quality Instrument).

 Peer Review Process

All articles are fully peer-reviewed by independent academic editors and reviewers. Journal of Technogenic and Ecological Safety only publish articles that have been approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate for the article.

After you submit, a member of the Editorial board will be appointed as Editor-in-Chief for your manuscript. This selection is based on the Editors’ availability and suitability, taking into account potential conflicts of interest.

Upon receiving a manuscript, the Editor has the option to reject it outright. This may happen if it is not a good fit for the journal or of insufficient quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements of the journal for the design of the materials of the articles are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, about which the authors of the article receive a message.

If the Editor approves the manuscript, he initiates an expert process.

The Editor then appoints the reviewers. For an expert review of articles, reviewers can be members of the editorial board of Journal Technogenic and Ecological Safety and external highly qualified specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific direction.

For all articles submitted for review, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using software (from open access) to identify cases of overlap and similar text in the submitted manuscripts.

After receiving the article for review, the reviewer assesses the possibility of reviewing the materials on the basis of the compliance of their own qualifications with the subject of the author's research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer should refuse to review and inform the editorial board about this. Then Editor-in-Chief should decide on the appointment of another reviewer.

The reviewer, as a rule, concludes within 7 ... 10 days about the possibility of printing the article. The review period may in each individual case change to reflect the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided.

Journal of Technogenic and Ecological Safety follow a single-blind review process, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the author(s).

After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out the developed form that contains recommendations and expert opinion. After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers will make one of the following recommendations:

- Publish Unaltered;

- Consider after Minor Changes;

- Consider after Major Changes;

- Reject.

Using the submitted reviews, the Editor-in-Chief is then able to make a final recommendation on the manuscript. A manuscript must be rejected if the majority of the reviewers recommend doing so. Editor-in-Chief inform the author of the results of the review by e-mail.

Based on the recommendation made by the reviewers, further steps may be necessary:

- publish Unaltered: the author will be notified of the acceptance of their manuscript;

- consider after Minor Changes: the author will receive feedback and be asked to submit an amended version addressing the reviewers’ concerns. Editor-in-Chief will check the amended manuscript and ensure the concerns have been addressed. If satisfied, Editor-in-Chief can accept the manuscript;

- consider after Major Changes: the author will receive feedback and be asked to submit an amended version addressing the reviewers’ concerns. The amended manuscript will be sent to the original reviewers to be reassessed. The Editor-in-Chief will then make a recommendation and may ask for further amendments;

- reject: the manuscript is immediately rejected.

In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editor. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the entitlement to reject article in case insolvency or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with the obligatory observance of the principles of double-blind reviewing.

The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary - by the editorial board.

 The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of the positive conclusion of the Editor-in-Chief or the editorial board on the appropriateness and possibility of publishing the article.

In the case of a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article is sent for technical corrections and text formatting (if necessary). Minor corrections of a stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are made by the Editorial Board without the consent of the author. In this case, if necessary, or at the request of the author, the manuscript in the form of an article layout is returned to the author for approval. After that, in 3-5 days the article will be published on the website in "Articles in Press".

Responsibility for violation of copyright and non-compliance with existing standards in the article rests with the author(s) of the article.

Responsibility for the truthfulness of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made and the scientific and practical level of the article lies with the author(s).