All articles received by the editorial board are reviewed. The procedure for reviewing focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the article, determining its compliance with the journal and providing a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the materials of the article. Accepted for publishing only articles of high professional level, based on the original analysis of the selected scientific problem.
The procedure involves bilateral «blind» (double-blind) reviewing where the author and the reviewer did not know each other.
We recommend you to read our editorial policy and see “Instruction for a reviewer." In order to be able to carry out the review, reviewers must register.
Implementation of review
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. Editorial board appoints for reviewing the manuscript two independent experts according to their research profiles.
3. After getting the article, the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials (its compliance qualification, sphere of author research, the probability of conflict of interest). If there is a conflict of interest, the reviewer must abandon the review and notify the editorial board (within 2-3 days).
4. Reviewing of the article lasts for two weeks (14 days) from the moment of its receipt, the reviewer then sends the editor's manuscript with their own comments and conclusions or fills in a standardized form "Review of the reviewer".
5. Editorial board sends the author the manuscript of the article with the comments of reviewers and the proposal takes into account these remarks, preparing an updated version of the article. Within one month the author has to correct the work according to proposals and comments and resend the article to the editorial office.
6. After having reworked the manuscript for a month, the author sends it to the reviewer for reconsideration. Within a week of receiving the author's version, the reviewer should evaluate correction and prepare its own report.
7. After finishing with the final version of an article, the reviewer prepares a reasoned conclusion on the possibility of publishing an article or fills out a standardized form "Review reviewer", containing the last recommendations.
8. If the reviewers rejected the article, the editors send the written notification to the author.
9. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of the publication is taken by the editorial board.
Instruction for reviewer
1. Reviewing should contribute to reconciling the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, and institutions where the research was enforced.
2. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological levels of an article, its scientific novelty, significance, and practical value, determine compliance with the principles of peer-reviewed articles in scientific publications, and provide recommendations in case of violation.
3. Sent for reviewing manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and include confidential information.
4. You can not make copies sent for review articles or use the information about the content of the article before its publication.
5. Reviewing is made on the basis of confidentiality. Information about the article was not reported to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
6. If there is evidence of falsification or uncertainty regarding the materials of the article, the reviewer refers to the editorial board demanding a collective review of peer-reviewed articles.
7. The reviewer should abandon reviewing in the next cases: 1) he is not sure if he meets the direct qualification of research; 2) there are conflicts of interest of survey results with personal reviewer developments.