Peer review (expert evaluation) is conducted to ensure a high scientific and technical standard of the Space Technology. Missile Armaments Collection of Scientific Articles.

The purpose of peer review is to obtain an objective expert evaluation of a scientific article concerning its relevance, scientific novelty, practical significance, and compliance with established requirements by a specialist in the relevant field of knowledge.

The Editorial Board organizes independent, impartial, and confidential peer review of all submitted manuscripts in accordance with generally accepted principles of international publication ethics and modern editorial standards. In its activities, the Board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) of Elsevier, and the practices of leading international scientific publishers.

Peer review is conducted under a double-blind model, which ensures mutual anonymity of authors and reviewers. All reviewers shall act objectively and comply with the provisions of the Publication Ethics and Editorial Policy sections of the journal.

Peer review procedure

1. Initial editorial screening. Submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary assessment for compliance with the scope of the Collection, scientific quality, formatting requirements, and principles of academic integrity (including checks for plagiarism and the use of artificial intelligence). The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage without external review. The initial evaluation is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (as an author, co-author, or due to personal or professional relationships with the authors), the evaluation is conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the Editorial Board without a conflict of interest. If the article meets the requirements for publication in the Collection, it is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code and removes all author-identifying information.
2. Appointment of reviewers. Reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board from among independent experts in the relevant field, taking into account their scientific competence and absence of conflicts of interest. External reviewers may include both Ukrainian and international scholars specializing in the same scientific area as the authors. An invitation letter is sent on behalf of the Editorial Office, accompanied by the anonymized manuscript and a review form. Reviewers shall not be affiliated with the same institution as the author and shall have no conflicts of interest.
3. Expert evaluation. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Relevance and significance of the topic.
• Scientific novelty of the results.
• Methodological soundness.
• Reliability and validity of the data obtained.
• Logical structure and quality of presentation.
• Compliance with international standards of scientific writing.

4. Editorial decision based on peer review. Based on the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept for publication.
• Accept after revision.
• Reject.

5. Revision of the manuscript. If revision is required, authors shall submit a revised version of the manuscript within the specified period (up to one month), along with responses to the reviewer’s comments. The Editorial Office may initiate a second round of peer review.
6. Appealing procedure. If the authors disagree with the reviewer’s conclusions, they have the right to submit a reasoned appeal. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on the appeal.
7. Final decision on publication. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication based on the reviewers’ reports and with due consideration of compliance with ethical standards.
8. Confidentiality. Peer review is conducted in accordance with the principles of confidentiality. Manuscripts and reviews shall not be disclosed to third parties without appropriate permission. The Editorial Office retains reviews for a minimum of three years.