Peer-review policy
The Editorial Board of the journal adheres to the principles of publication ethics accepted by the international community, which are reflected, in particular, in the recommendations of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Recommendations on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit) of Elsevier Publishing House, the Code of Ethics of Scientific Publications (www.publicet.org/code).
All articles received by the editors are reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Members of the Editorial Board of the Journal, as well as highly qualified scientists and specialists from other organisations with deep professional knowledge and work experience in a specific scientific field, can be involved as reviewers of the the submitted articles manuscripts. Peer review is "double-blind": the author is not informed about the reviewer’s/revieviwers’ identity and vice versa.
Reviewers evaluate submitted articles according to the following criteria.
All submitted articles undergo double-blind review by two reviewers, as ensured by the editorial board.
The main purpose of the double blind peer review process is to increase the scientific value of articles by forming objective procedures for selecting author's manuscripts and determining balanced approaches to developing recommendations for their improvement.
Manuscripts structured in accordance with the established requirements are allowed for peer review. In order to determine the degree of compliance with these requirements, manuscripts are subject to primary control among members of the journal’s editorial board.
If there are comments at the stage of primary control, the manuscript is returned to the author to eliminate the identified defects with a definition of the deadline or rejected in case of plagiarism.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for peer review to independent experts who are professionals in this research field and have deep knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field.
The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity of the reviewers and authors.
After reviewing the materials, the reviewer must make one of the following decisions:
- recommended for publication;
- recommended to return for revision and re-review;
- not recommended for publication (if the text mostly does not meet the requirements and needs considerable time for revision. The author may re-submit the revised article to the next issue);
- not recommended for publication without the possibility of re-submission (if the submitted text contains plagiarism, does not correspond to the subject of the journal or does not correspond to the level of the journal).
The final decision on the submitted materials is made by the editorial board. Peer review results, comments and recommendations are sent to the author(s) by e-mail. The time limit for finalization of the article is not more than one month.
The revised version is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative conclusion of the reviewers, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
Decisions on rejecting articles at the stage of preliminary review or at the peer review stages are final. The Editorial Board of the journal gives reasons to the author(s) for the rejection. If rejection occurs on the peer review stage, the Editorial Board provides the author with the anonymous conclusions of the reviewers. The decision of the editors to approve the article for publication or to reject it is based only on its academic level, the originality of scientific results, as well as the compliance of the research with the journal`s mission.
The editors reserve the right to insignificant literary editing and text reductions while preserving the author's style.
