Peer review process

The reviewing process is applied to all the articles having been submitted to the editorial board. The purpose of the peer review is to promote the strict selection of copyrighted materials for publication, as well as to provide recommendations for the further improvement of the materials. The primary purpose of the peer review process is to eliminate the cases of improper research practices. The articles of scientific value, complying with the publication's profile, are accepted for publication.

The relevance of the articles submitted for consideration, within the scientific specialization of the journal, is determined by the editor-in-chief; the latter assigns two (sometimes three) reviewers for evaluation of each article.

The review is conducted in the format of confidentiality and is a double blind one: the reviewers do not know who the author of the material is; the authors, in turn, do not know who the reviewers are. At least ten reviewers are selected to review all articles.

The blind peer review is carried out by the researchers specializing in the field of the study, them having relevant publications in professional journals and the degrees of a candidate of science (PhD) or doctor of science (D. habil.).

Review period is up to 3 weeks.

The peer review report on a manuscript quality implies as follows:

  • correspondence of the content of the publication to its title;
  • general analysis of the scientific content of the manuscript, novelty, terminology and structure of the publication, the relevance of the topic and the significance of the problem;
  • the reliability of the facts, as stated; completeness of materials processing;
  • evaluation of the manuscript in accordance with the available requirements for the design of the materials; references to the literary and other sources of information;
  • correlation of the author's conclusions with the existing scientific concepts;
  • clarity of presentation and reasoning of conclusions; the validity and validity of the conclusions drawn in relation to the goals and objectives of the study;
  • assessment of the personal contribution of the author of the publication to the solution of the problem under study;
  • identification of the author-related flaws, inaccuracies and errors in the manuscript.

The review is compiled in an arbitrary manner, in compliance with the above requirements. The review should include a recommendation to publish the manuscript, to amend and refine it, or to reject the manuscript.

The publisher has the right to direct the publication either for an additional review, or for revision, to the author with the subsequent re-review, or to reject the material, upon receiving negative review reports.

With a positive evaluation of the manuscript, the editorial board informs the author of the acceptance of his materials for publication.

If the review presents recommendations for revision, the manuscript is sent to the author for its further refining, the exact date of the manuscript revision to be elaborated.

The revised version of the manuscript is sent for re-review by the same reviewers for the final decision on the possibility for the material to be published.

Rejected articles are not accepted for subsequent reviews.

The review reports signed by the reviewer by means of a standard or digital signature, are kept by the Editorial Board for three years.