Articles assessment procedure

Articles assessment is the process of information preparation for further decision making by the Collection's editorial board as for the feasibility and advisability of articles publication in the Collection of scientific papers "Project Management and Developement of Production".

Articles assessment is going in two stages at the editorial of the Collection:

І. The first stage is the formal assessment of the materials of given articles and it is aimed to assess their compliance with the requirements of Collection subject, completeness, typography. Articles are allowed  for further assessment if their materials do not contain any inconsistencies for the requirements. Otherwise, the publication of the article is impossible.

ІІ. The second stage is the assessment of the given article content and it is aimed to assess its quality as a scientific work.

Article content assessment is carried out by force of an independent review by two internal Collection's experts (reviewers). In order to create the conditions for impartial and objective judgment about the quality of the article as a scientific work, materials of each article are preparing for the assessment the following way.

Each article is assigned with a code.

The main results of a review article are the presentation of the results of a scientific thought development as for the problem, a comparison of the most significant scientific achievements in the different approaches, as well as determining of own place in problem solving by allocating an unsolved part of the problem.

The main results of a theoretical article are the theoretical results (they reflect established connections in the form of models, classifications, terminology systems or individual terms and their definitions, and so on.), and scientific propositions (they reflect theoretically established patterns in the form of principles, laws, axioms, postulates, rules, statements, etc..) and others.

An article of the research (empirical) article must contain the experimental results that confirm the hypothesis put forward by the author (s), theoretical results or scientific propositions.

Articles of any kind must be characterized by unity of content and must indicate author's personal contribution to science, and be prepared in compliance with copyrights.

Digital copies of the article materials are  sent to two internal experts (among the editorial board and additionally involved expert) 

Based on the study of the article materials experts express their opinions and comments as for the quality of an encoded article. Thus they use such basic criteria:

- practical problem relevance,

- scientific results novelty,

- completeness and validity of the research findings,

- the degree of the research objectives achievement,

- the importance of the results from scientific and practical points of view.

On the basis of expressed and commented judgments the experts formulate a general conclusion about the article publication such as to published without revisions; or to publish with minor amendments; or to publish with significant improvement; or not to publish.

Expert Reviews are prepared within one week from the date of receipt of article materials, then they are sent to the editorial office and are discussed by the Editorial Board. Based on the results of the discussion, the final decision is made as for the acceptance of an article for publication, and this is reported to the author.

Modified or amended articles are re-assessed. In case of repeated negative result, an article is declined and is not a subject to further review.

Article materials and the results of their assessment are being  kept at the editorial office for 2 years from the date of their first admission to the editor.

Collection history

Collection history

2018 65 66 67 68
2017 61  62  63  64
2016 57 58  59 60 
2015 53  54 55  56 
2014 49 50 51 52
2013 45 46 47 48
2012 41 42 43 44
2011 37 38 39 40
2010 33 34 35 36
2009 29 30 31 32
2008 25 26 27 28
2007 21 22 23 24
2006 17 18 19 20
2005 13 14 15 16
2004 9 10 11 12
2003   6 7 8
2002 4 5    
2001 3      
2000 1 2