Proceedings of the Technical University of Sofia

Peer review is an essential part of the editorial process of the Proceedings of the Technical University of Sofia. Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, and constructive assessment of the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

The journal applies a single-blind peer-review process: the reviewers know the identities of the authors, while the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, it is subject to an initial editorial screening. The manuscript is checked for:

• relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
• compliance with the official Proceedings of the Technical University of Sofia template and formatting requirements;
• compliance with the required paper length of 4–8 pages;
• presence of the required manuscript elements, including title, author information, abstract, keywords, main text, conclusions, and references;
• basic compliance with publication ethics requirements;
• textual similarity using the journal's similarity-screening system.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission and formatting requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before entering the peer-review process.

A manuscript that passes the initial screening is assigned to an Associate Editor responsible for the corresponding thematic area.

The Associate Editor coordinates the peer-review process, selects appropriate reviewers, considers the submitted review reports and, where necessary, requests additional reviews or revisions.

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by two independent reviewers selected by the Associate Editor.

Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of:

• expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript;
• appropriate research experience;
• independence from the authors and their work;
• absence of conflicts of interest;
• ability to provide a competent review within the requested time.

An invited reviewer should decline the invitation if the manuscript lies outside the reviewer's area of expertise or if any personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship could reasonably affect the reviewer's impartiality.

If an invited reviewer is unable to perform the review, the reviewer may suggest another qualified specialist. The final selection of any replacement reviewer remains the responsibility of the Associate Editor.

Invited reviewers receive a notification containing information about the manuscript and instructions for accessing the e-University platform of the Technical University of Sofia.

After accepting an invitation, the reviewer is normally expected to submit the review report within 10 days. If additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the Associate Editor as early as possible.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Information, data, ideas, or results contained in an unpublished manuscript must not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the review.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and should not evaluate a manuscript when their independence or impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

If a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate manipulation of results, unethical research practices, or another serious ethical concern, this should be reported confidentially to the Associate Editor.

The review should assess whether the manuscript provides sufficient scientific evidence to support its claims and conclusions. Reviewers should consider, where applicable:

• Originality and scientific contribution – whether the work presents sufficiently original and relevant results.
• Significance – whether the results are of potential interest to the readership of the journal.
• Research methodology – whether the methods are appropriate, sufficiently described, and scientifically justified.
• Experimental or numerical evidence – whether the results adequately support the conclusions and claims.
• Results and discussion – whether the results are clearly presented and appropriately interpreted.
• Conclusions – whether they follow from the presented results and clearly identify the scientific contribution and limitations of the work.
• References – whether relevant previous research is adequately acknowledged and whether the reference list is appropriate and sufficiently current.
• Presentation – whether the manuscript is logically organized, understandable, and sufficiently clear.
• Figures and tables – whether they are necessary, legible, correctly referenced, and consistent with the discussion in the text.

Review reports should be specific, constructive, and supported by scientific reasoning. Reviewers should identify both the strengths and the weaknesses of the manuscript and clearly distinguish essential scientific concerns from minor editorial comments.

A useful review report may follow this structure:

1. Briefly summarize the subject and main contribution of the manuscript.
2. Comment on its relevance to the scope and readership of the journal.
3. Identify the principal scientific strengths and weaknesses.
4. Provide clearly numbered major and minor comments.
5. Identify claims that are insufficiently supported by data, analysis, validation, or references.
6. Comment on methodological limitations or missing information required to reproduce or evaluate the study.
7. Where relevant, identify important literature that should be considered. Suggested references should be directly relevant to the manuscript and should not be requested merely to increase citations to the reviewer's own work.

Comments should address the scientific work rather than the authors personally. Reviewers should avoid dismissive, offensive, or unsupported statements.

Reviews are submitted through the journal's electronic review form.

The form contains evaluations and comments concerning the scientific quality of the manuscript. It also provides separate fields for comments to the authors and confidential comments to the Associate Editor. Confidential comments are not visible to the authors.

Reviewers may save an incomplete review as a draft and complete it later before submitting the final report to the Associate Editor.

At the end of the review, the reviewer should select one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept
   The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form, apart from possible minor editorial corrections.
2. Minor Revision
   The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires a limited number of clearly defined corrections or clarifications that do not substantially change the study.
3. Major Revision
   The manuscript may become suitable for publication, but substantial scientific clarification, additional analysis, restructuring, validation, or correction is required before a publication decision can be made.
4. Reject
   The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, scope-related, or evidential problems that cannot reasonably be resolved within the current review cycle.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The reviewer does not make the final publication decision.

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors are expected to submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. Changes in the revised manuscript should be clearly identified.

The Associate Editor determines whether the revised manuscript should be returned to the original reviewers. Major revisions will normally require further evaluation when the changes affect the scientific content or conclusions.

If the review reports are substantially conflicting, or if a specific issue requires additional expertise, the Associate Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

After considering the review reports, the authors' revisions, and the recommendation of the Associate Editor, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding publication.

A decision to reject closes the current submission process. A substantially revised work may subsequently be submitted as a new manuscript, but such resubmission does not imply or guarantee acceptance for publication.