The purpose of the review is publication in the Science Bulletin of Poltava University of Economics and Trade. Series “Technical Sciences” is only high-quality articles that have scientific novelty and a modern level of research.

1. The review procedure is anonymous for both authors and reviewers and is carried out by two independent experts, usually doctors of science or professors in the field of publication, one of whom is a member of the editorial board.

2. The editors carry out the initial verification of the materials of the scientific article for compliance with the "Requirements for articles" and verification of originality using the software StrikePlagiarism.com.

3. Articles prepared in accordance with the "Requirements to Articles" and the originality of which is not less than 80% are allowed for review.

4. An article with a standard review form is sent to the reviewer after agreement with the deleted data on the authors and without the author's certificate.

5. In the review, the reviewer states:
- compliance with the subject of the newsletter;
- assessment of the scientific component of the article: substantiation of the relevance of the topic; substantiation of accepted "object" and "subjects" of research; the level of analysis of research on this problem in Ukraine; the level of analysis of research on this problem abroad; the level of scientific novelty of the presented research; completeness of the description of the used research equipment and research methods (possibility of reproduction of the conducted researches);
- analysis and validity of the obtained scientific results);
- compliance of the article with the requirements of the newsletter: compliance with the conclusions of the title of the article, annotation and purpose of the work; the presence of all components of the article; annotation structure;
- compliance with the requirements of the figures, tables, formulas available in the article; bibliography: modern sources used, foreign publications, transliteration);
- expert opinions on the possibility of publication (with available comments and suggestions for revision of the article).
The review preparation period is 14 days.

6. In case of a negative conclusion on the possibility of publication, the reviewer shall indicate his reasoned explanation.

7. If it is necessary to revise the article in the conclusions, the reviewer indicates a list of comments that need to be revised.

8. The article that needs to be revised is sent to the author with suggestions to take into account the comments or refute them with arguments. The author should add a letter to the revised article, which should include answers to all comments and changes that have been made to the article.

9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author must provide a reasoned answer to the editors. In this case, the article is considered by the existing members of the editorial board. As a result of the review, the article may be sent to another reviewer for re-review, or rejected from publication. In the future, the editors do not discuss with the authors of the rejected articles.

10. The final decision on the publication of the article is made at a meeting of the editorial board, taking into account the reviews received. The commission consists of the editor-in-chief, the editor-in-chief and the secretary.
11. The article, recommended for publication by the editorial commission, is transferred to the publishing and printing department of the Center for information support of the educational process PUET in accordance with the technological process of preparation of the next issue of the bulletin.

12. Reviews and recommendations for publication of each article are stored in the editorial office in electronic or paper form for 2 years from the date of publication of the journal.

The authors and reviewers are responsible for the accuracy of the data, the validity of the conclusions, recommendations and scientific and practical level of the article.