All submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are blind peer-reviewed. The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the careful selection of the author's manuscripts for publication and to make specific recommendations for their improvement. The level of compliance with the rules for preparing an article for publication in a scientific journal is monitored separately.

Peer review policies adhere to the global ethical norms (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers)

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor. The Proceedings of the Institute of Electrodynamics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process must do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for the reviewer's advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.