Review Policy

1.1. General Provisions

The Bulletin of the National Technical University "KhPI". Series: Strategic Management, Portfolio, Program and Project Management (hereinafter referred to as the Bulletin) applies an independent peer-review procedure to all manuscripts submitted for publication. The aim of the review process is to ensure the scientific quality, reliability and originality of the published materials.

1.2. Type of Review

The Bulletin employs single-blind peer review with the following characteristics:

  • the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author (the reviewer remains anonymous to the author);
  • the identity of the author(s) is disclosed to the reviewer;
  • the identities of both the reviewer and the author are known to the editor making the decision.

The Bulletin does not publish open reviews — reviews are not published alongside the article.

1.3 Procedure

1.3.1. All manuscripts received by the editorial office undergo an initial check for compliance with the Bulletin’s scope and formatting requirements.

1.3.2. The Editor-in-Chief appoints at least two independent experts (external reviewers or members of the editorial board) to assess the content.

1.4. Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are appointed from among recognised experts in the relevant field who:

  • hold an academic degree and have a record of active publication in the relevant field;
  • have no employment or other dependent relationship with the authors of the manuscript;
  • have no confirmed conflict of interest regarding the work under review;
  • are not residents of states recognised as aggressor states or occupying states, or of the Republic of Belarus.

1.5. Communication

  • Reviewers communicate exclusively with the editor via the Bulletin’s online platform or official email. Direct contact between the author and the reviewer is prohibited.
  • Outcome: The reviewer provides a recommendation (accept, require revision, reject). The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board based on the recommendations.
  • Transparency: Information regarding specific reviews is not published in open access; however, the editorial office retains copies of reviews for reporting to the Ministry of Education and Science and other monitoring bodies.

1.6. Review Timelines

Approximate timelines for each stage:

  • preliminary check (relevance to the subject area, minimum requirements, originality): up to 10 working days from the date of manuscript registration;
  • review: up to 30 calendar days from the date the manuscript is sent to the reviewer;
  • revision by the author (if necessary): up to 30 calendar days, unless otherwise agreed with the editorial board;
  • final editorial decision: up to 10 working days after receipt of all reviews and, if necessary, the revised manuscript.

1.7. Evaluation criteria

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

  • the relevance and scientific novelty of the research;
  • the clarity of the formulation of the scientific problem and the aim of the work;
  • the validity and correctness of the methodology applied;
  • the reliability and completeness of the results presented;
  • the soundness of the conclusions and their consistency with the research objectives;
  • the quality and comprehensiveness of the literature review;
  • the absence of unsubstantiated references;
  • the absence of signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism or improper borrowing;
  • compliance with formatting requirements.

1.8. Possible decisions

Based on the results of the peer review, the editor-in-chief or the editorial board shall make one of the following decisions:

  • accept the manuscript without changes;
  • accept the manuscript following minor revisions;
  • return the manuscript for major revisions, followed by a further peer review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The decision of the editor-in-chief or the editorial board is justified and communicated to the author via the journal management system. Reviews are provided to the author in anonymised form (without identifying the reviewer).

1.9. Confidentiality

Reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript and the fact of its review. The manuscript may not be used by the reviewer in their own academic work prior to its official publication. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process.