Review process

Reviewing

All articles are received by the editorial board are reviewing. The procedure for reviewing focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the article, determining its compliance the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages the materials of article. Accepted for publishing only articles of high professional level, based in the original analysis of selected scientific problem.

In order to be able to review, reviewers must register on the journal's website and read the basic rules of the journal's policy. 

Stages of reviewing

  1. For the reviewing articles reviewers can be members of the editorial board of the scientific journal, but also highly skilled third parties professionals, who have profound professional knowledge and experience in a specific academic area.
  2. The procedure involves bilateral «blind» (double-blind) reviewing where the author and the reviewer did not know each other.
  3. Editorial board appoints for reviewing the manuscript two independent experts according to research profile.
  4. After getting the article, reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials (its compliance qualification, sphere of author research, the probability of conflict of interest). If there is conflict of interest, the reviewer must abandon the review and notify the editorial board (within 2–3 days).
  5. Reviewing of the article lasts for two weeks (14 days) from the moment of it receipt, the reviewer then sends to the editor manuscript with own comments and conclusions or fills in a standardized form “Reviewer's conclusion”.
  6. Editorial board send author the manuscript of the article with the comments of reviewers and the proposal take into account these remarks, preparing an updated version of the article. Within one month of the author has to correct the work according to proposals and comments and resend article to the editorial office.
  7. After have reworked with manuscript during a month, author sent it to reviewer for reconsideration. Within a week of receiving the author version, reviewer should evaluate correction and prepare its own report.
  8. After finishing with the final version of an article, reviewer prepares a reasoned conclusion on the possibility of publishing an article or fill out a standardized form “Reviewer's conclusion”, containing the last recommendations.
  9. If the reviewers rejected the article, the editors sent written notification to the author.
  10. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is taken by the editor, if it is necessary – the meeting of the editorial board is organized.

Reviewer's conclusion: download the document

Appeal procedure

If the author does not agree with certain comments of the reviewer, he has the right to send an appeal to the editors in the format “reviewer's comments – the author's comment”. This document is sent to the reviewer and, together with the editors, a decision is made on the manuscript.

If reviewers choose opposing resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept/reject), the editors will contact them and jointly consider all comments to agree on a position on further publication of this material.

If a decision cannot be made, the editorial board should appoint an independent expert.