Reviewing

All articles submitted for publication undergo an open peer review according to the "Double-Blind Peer Review" procedure.

The article review period is up to 90 days.

The article review process consists of the following stages:

  1. Article submission: Corresponding author (contact person from the list of co-authors) submits the article to the journal by e-mail.
  2. Evaluation of the article by the editors: the responsible secretary checks the article for compliance with the formal requirements for the article (formatting, citations, list of references, structure of the article, etc., according to the requirements for the article). The scientific level of the article is not evaluated at this stage.

All articles are checked for plagiarism and the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using appropriate software. If plagiarism is detected, the article is immediately rejected and not submitted for review. Citations are allowed in a volume that does not exceed 15% of the total volume of the article.

  1. Evaluation by the editor-in-chief: The editor-in-chief evaluates the article so that it meets the scientific profile of the journal, is original, interesting and methodologically complete. If this is missing from the article, it may be rejected without further review.
  2. Invitation of reviewers: The Editor-in-Chief sends invitation letters to scholars who are experts in the subject of the article. Each article must be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers from different organizations.
  3. Response of the reviewers: Potential reviewers familiarize themselves with the content of the article, make their own assessment for compliance with their scientific profile, absence of conflict of interests and availability. They can accept or decline invitations to be reviewers. They can also recommend other reviewers.
  4. Performing a review: The reviewer rereads the article to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are identified at this stage, the reviewer may reject the article and provide an explanation of the reasons for rejection. Otherwise, the article will be read more thoroughly (perhaps several times) to perform a detailed quality review. Reviewers send their reviews to the journal with a recommendation to accept or reject the article. Reviewers can also recommend corrections to the article, taking into account their comments, after which the article can be recommended for publication. Reviewing can last from 3 to 6 months.
  5. Review of Reviews: The Editor-in-Chief reviews all submitted reviews to make a final decision. If the reviews are very different from each other, the editor-in-chief sends the article to a third reviewer.
  6. Notification of decision: The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision to the author by e-mail, along with the relevant comments from the reviewers. If the article is accepted, it remains with the editor-in-chief for inclusion in the journal. If the article is rejected or needs to be revised, the editor-in-chief notifies the author about it with the substantiated conclusions of the reviewers and their comments on improving the quality of the article. If the article was sent to the author for revision, then the article is sent again to the reviewer for evaluation of the corrected article. If the comments were insignificant, then their consideration can be evaluated by the editor-in-chief.

Reviewers may be leading experts in the relevant field, with the exception of members of editorial boards who conduct research in a specialty that corresponds to the topic of the material submitted for publication and are authors (co-authors) of scientific publications in the relevant specialty published within the last five years.