The procedure for reviewing manuscripts of articles in the Journal of Physics and Electronics

1. Reviewing of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the Journal of Physics and Electronics  and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers.

2. The Journal of Physics and Electronics uses Double-Blind Peer Review :

• the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author / authors;
• the author / authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

3. The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the site.
4. The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor or the executive editor.
5. The Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor or executive editor) determines the reviewer from the membership of the advisory board and external reviewer for the paper to be published. Reviewers (both members of the advisory board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).

6. After an expert evaluation of a scientific paper, the reviewer may:

• recommend paper for publication;
• recommend the paper for its publication after author's revision, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
• do not recommend paper for posting.

If the reviewer recommends the paper for posting it after revision, taking into account the comments, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must state the reason for the decision

The editor recommends using the developed standard review form.

7. When reviewing scientific papers reviewers must:

• pay special attention to the urgency of the scientific problem raised in the paper;
• characterize the theoretical and applied value of the performed research;
• correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
• assess how the author's conclusions relate to existing scientific concepts;
• adherence by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.

It is advisable to note in the reviews the conformity of style, logic and availability of scientific teaching, as well as make conclusions about the authenticity and validity of conclusions of the author (authors) in this article.

8. Scientific papers may be sent for further consideration:

• insufficient expert qualification, indicated in the issues considered in the scientific paper;
• insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
• acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the scientific paper.

9. The executed review is sent to the editor by e-mail in the form of a scan copy
10. The editorial office sends copies of reviews to the authors (unnamed, so as not to disclose the data of the reviewer) or the reasoned refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.

     All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism before publication with relevant software. If   plagiarism in the submitted manuscript is established, the paper will be rejected by the journal.