Peer review

All articles submitted to the editorial board undergo a review procedure.

The main purpose of the peer review procedure is to respect the principles of science and academic virtue. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. Furthermore, they also determine the conformity of an article to the principles of ethics in scientific publications and give recommendations on how to eliminate the cases of violation of these principles.

Both members of the Editorial Council and independent experts are involved in the review process, who provides their conclusions in writing in the prescribed form.

The review procedure is anonymous to both the reviewer and the authors.

Reviewing is based on confidentiality, when information about the article (deadline for receipt, content, stages and features of the review, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not communicated to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.

Review procedure for manuscripts:

  1. The author submits to the Editorial Board a manuscript that meets the requirements of the digitized publication and the rules of preparing scientific articles.
  2. The manuscripts which do not meet the requirements above are not registered and are not allowed for further review, which is communicated to the author.
  3. All manuscripts which are submitted to the Editorial Board are sent to one and, if necessary, two reviewers in the research profile. The right to appoint reviewers is assigned to the chief editor.
  4. Reviewers may be both members of the editorial board and external highly qualified specialists.
  5. After receiving the manuscript for review, the secretary of the editorial board evaluates the articles in terms of the author's compliance with all necessary technical requirements (within 7 days). If necessary, he will collaborate with the author to bring the article in line with the following requirements, give the article a cipher and send it to the chief editor for the following sending to the reviewers.
  6. The reviewer makes a conclusion within 21 days that the article can be printed.
  7. The review is conducted confidentially on the principle of double-sided "blind" review, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other.
  8. All articles submitted for review are checked for uniqueness of the text and absence of incorrect borrowings using appropriate software.
  9. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standardized form.
  10. If the reviewer points out the need to make certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take the comments into account when preparing an updated version of the article or argues against them. Then the manuscript is reviewed again. If necessary, another reviewer is involved or the material can be reviewed at a meeting of the editorial board.
  11. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the chief editor and, if necessary, by the decision of the editorial board.
  12. The author and the reviewer are responsible for the reliability of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations made, the scientific and practical level of the article. The Editorial Board is responsible for all materials published in the publication.