All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the Scientific and Technical Journal “Technogenic and Ecological Safety” are subject to mandatory peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the reviewer’s identity is not disclosed to the author, and the author’s identity is not disclosed to the reviewer. This approach is intended to ensure objective evaluation, reduce the risk of bias, and improve the quality of editorial decisions.

After a manuscript is submitted to the editorial office, it undergoes an initial review during which its compliance with the journal’s subject scope, the presence of all required structural elements, adherence to formatting requirements, accuracy of bibliographic references, and the absence of obvious signs of academic misconduct are checked.

Manuscripts that meet the established requirements are sent for review to two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected from specialists who possess scientific expertise in the relevant subject area, an appropriate level of qualification, experience in research and/or academic activity, publications on the topic of the submitted manuscript, and have no conflict of interest with the authors or their affiliated institutions.

During the review process, the following are assessed: the relevance of the topic, originality, theoretical and practical significance of the obtained results, validity of the applied methods, logic of presentation, reliability of conclusions, consistency between the title, abstract, keywords, and the content of the article, as well as the quality of the scholarly apparatus and bibliographic formatting.

The peer review procedure is documented by means of written or electronic review reports. A review must contain an evaluation of the scientific level of the manuscript, comments, recommendations for revision, and the reviewer’s final conclusion. Reviews are kept by the editorial office in accordance with the established procedure as part of the editorial documentation. The final editorial decision is recorded in the relevant internal editorial document and communicated to the author by electronic means.

Based on the results of the peer review, the editorial office may make one of the following decisions:

– recommend the article for publication;

– recommend the article for publication after revision;

– send the article for repeated peer review after substantial revision;

– reject the article.

If there are significant discrepancies between the reviewers’ conclusions, the editorial board may commision an additional review. The final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editorial office or the editorial board, taking into account the content of the reviews, the results of the author’s revision of the manuscript, and the compliance of the article with the journal’s editorial policy.

The editorial office ensures the confidentiality of materials submitted for review and does not allow reviewers to use information from the manuscript for their own benefit prior to its official publication.

Approximate peer review timelines:

– initial review and appointment of reviewers – up to 7 days;

– preparation of the review report – up to 21 days;

– if necessary, the review period may be extended upon agreement with the editorial office;

– the overall review cycle, from submission of the manuscript to the editorial decision, generally takes 4–6 weeks.