Procedure for reviewing articles

Procedure for reviewing articles

1. The Editorial Board of the Journal reviews all materials coming to the Editorial Board, corresponding to its subject matter, for the purpose of their expert evaluation.

2. The reviewers are experts from the members of the Editorial Board, as well as external experts from among leading scientists and specialists in the field of the journal's activity, who have a degree in the specialty corresponding to the subject of the reviewed article, as well as publications on the subject of the reviewed article for the last 3 years. Reviewer - an expert acting on behalf of a scientific journal or publishing house and conducting scientific examination of author's materials to determine the possibility of their publication.

3. The decision to choose one or another reviewer for the article review is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Each article is sent to two reviewers. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript for additional review.

5. The review is conducted confidentially. Neither the reviewer nor the author is informed about personal data and/or scientific affiliation of each other (double-blind review). Breach of confidentiality is possible only in case reviewer claims that the material in the article is unreliable or falsified.

6. Terms of reviewing in each individual case are determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the fastest possible publication of the article. The review period is not more than one month.

7. The review highlights the following issues:

  • The relevance of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title;
  • compliance with modern achievements of science;
  • accessibility to readers in terms of language, style, arrangement of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;
  • the appropriateness of the article in the light of previous publications;
  • what exactly are the positive aspects as well as the shortcomings of the article, what corrections and additions should be made by the author.

8. Based on the results of manuscript review, the reviewer gives recommendations on the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

  • the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
  • the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
  • the article needs additional review by another specialist;
  • article cannot be published in the journal.

9. If the review contains recommendations for correction and revision of the article, the editorial board sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The article finalized (revised) by the author is re-submitted for review.

10. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial office of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after one month from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to revise the article, the editorial office deregisters it. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification about deregistration of the manuscript due to the expiration of the time limit for revision

11. If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at the meeting of the Editorial Board.

12. The decision to reject or accept a manuscript for publication is made at the meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers.

13. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publication of the article. The final decision on the expediency of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the editorial board meeting. The article, not recommended for publication by the editorial board decision is not accepted for reconsideration.

The grounds for refusal to publish an article may be:

  • - inconsistency of the submitted material with the subject of the Journal;
  • - non-compliance with the requirements for articles;
  • - negative reviews by expers;
  • - decision of the Editorial Board recorded in the minutes of its meeting;
  • - the author's failure to comply with ethical principles

14. Notification of rejection or acceptance for publication is sent to the author by e-mail or through the publishing system of this website.

15. The original reviews are kept by the editorial board or editorial office for five years.