Reviewing is the receipt of consultations / advice on each of the manuscripts from experts.
Only scientific articles prepared in accordance with the “Requirements for submission” are allowed for review.
The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers (double-blind review).
The journal ensures the objectivity of the reviewers' judgments.
Reviewers must adhere to ethics requirements in scientific publications of Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.
Reviewers should not have a conflict of interest.
Article reviewing is confidential.
The review indicates one of the conclusion variants regarding the manuscript:
1) to recommend the article for publication without changes;
2) to recommend the article for publication with the reviewer’s comments and recommendations agreed with the author / authors;
3) to return the article to the author for revision with further review;
4) to reject the author to publish the article.
The editor encodes the article prepared in accordance with the requirements, removes information about the author(s) from it. The coded article is sent by e-mail to the reviewer.
Scientists who have scientific publications on the issues stated in the article are involved in the review. On behalf of the editors, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. A coded article and a standard review form are attached to the letter. The reviewer is chosen randomly based on their current download and with their consent.
The term of review and preparation of recommendations is two to four weeks from the moment of receipt of the article. Reviewers' recommendations are sent by e-mail to the editor.
The final decision on the article is made at the editorial board meeting. The decision is made taking into account the received reviews.
Further work with the article, which is recommended for publication, is carried out by the editorial staff in accordance with the technological process of preparing the journal issue.
The editorial decision is directed to the author(s). Articles to be revised are sent to the author(s).
The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of a repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and not subject to further consideration.
In case of the author’s disagreement with the reader’s opinion, he /she has the right to give a reasonably grounded answer to the journal’s editors. Under such circumstances his / her article is examined at the session of the journal’s editorial board. The editorial board can send the article for an additional or new reading to the other expert.
The editors do not hold discussions with the authors of rejected articles.