Peer review is a mandatory stage of the editorial process and involves obtaining expert opinions and recommendations on each submitted manuscript from independent specialists in the relevant field of knowledge.

Only scholarly articles prepared in accordance with the Submission Guidelines are accepted for consideration and peer review.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure, under which anonymity is ensured for both authors and reviewers. Each manuscript is evaluated by two independent reviewers.

The Editorial Office guarantees the impartiality and objectivity of the reviews.

Reviewers are required to comply with international standards of publication ethics, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the principles of objectivity, academic integrity, and professional impartiality.

Persons who have a conflict of interest with regard to the author, institution, or content of the research are not allowed to participate in the review process.

The entire peer review process is conducted on a confidential basis.

Possible reviewer recommendations
Following the evaluation of a manuscript, the reviewer may choose one of the following recommendations:

1. recommend the article for publication without revisions;

2. recommend the article for publication after the reviewer’s comments and recommendations have been addressed and approved by the author(s);

3. return the article to the author(s) for revision followed by repeated peer review;

4. reject the article for publication.

Organization of peer review
After the initial technical check, the editor assigns a code to the manuscript and removes all information identifying the author(s).

Experts invited to review manuscripts are specialists who have scholarly publications and research experience in the subject area covered by the article.

On behalf of the Editorial Office, a potential reviewer receives an official invitation letter to review the manuscript, together with:

• the anonymized text of the article;

• a standard review form.

The reviewer is selected on the basis of scholarly competence, current workload, and consent to participate.

Review timelines
The review and recommendation process generally takes from two to four weeks from the date the manuscript is received.

Reviews are submitted to the editor in electronic form.

In each individual case, the Editorial Office may set specific review deadlines, taking into account the need to create favorable conditions for the high-quality preparation of materials for publication.

Given the time required for authors to revise the manuscript and for repeated expert evaluation, the overall peer review process may take one month or longer.

Decision-making
The final decision on the publication of an article is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations.

If the decision is positive, the article is prepared for publication by the Editorial Office in accordance with the journal issue production process.

The editorial decision is communicated to the author(s).

Articles requiring revision are returned to the author(s) together with the reviewers’ comments.

The revised manuscript is submitted for repeated peer review.

If a repeated negative review is received, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

Author appeal
If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s conclusions, the author has the right to submit a reasoned written response to the Editorial Office.

In such a case, the manuscript is reconsidered by the Editorial Board.

By decision of the Editorial Office, the article may be sent for an additional or new review by another specialist.

The Editorial Office reserves the right not to continue discussion of finally rejected articles.

Reviewer selection criteria
Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• scholarly qualifications;

• research experience;

• publications relevant to the subject of the manuscript;

• current scholarly activity in professional academic journals.

A scientific degree or confirmed experience of professional research activity is mandatory.

A reviewer must be familiar with modern methods of scholarly analysis, aware of the current state of research in the relevant field, and adhere to the principles of academic integrity.

During the selection process, due consideration is given to the absence of conflicts of interest, willingness to work within a double-blind peer review system, and the ability to provide an objective, well-reasoned, and constructive review within the established deadlines.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the Editorial Office appoints another reviewer.

Invitation to cooperate
Reviewer status is an important component of professional scholarly activity and contributes to the development of a researcher’s academic reputation.

The Editorial Office invites specialists in physics, astronomy, applied physics, and nanomaterials to join the journal’s pool of reviewers.

To participate in manuscript peer review, applicants should submit an application in free form to the journal’s email address: phys_math_bulletin@ukr.net.

Надалі робитиму заголовки саме так: жирні, але того ж розміру, що й основний текст.