All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo double-blind peer-review. Both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
The editors ensure the objectivity of the reviewer’s work, timely identifying cases of violations and taking measures to eliminate them.
Manuscripts that have passed a preliminary assessment by the editor-in-chief or executive editor for compliance with the scope of the journal and the requirements for the design of articles are subject to peer-review.
Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are reviewed by the members of the editorial board of the Journal (internal reviewers) and external reviewers. All reviewers are competent specialists in the subjects of papers under review and have relevant during the recent 3 years. Only external reviewers are invited to review the articles of the editor-in-chief.
The authors of the manuscript have the right to submit to the editorial office their proposals for reviewers candidates, as well as list the names affiliations of specialists who should not be considered as possible reviewers due to the conflict of interest.
Co-authors of the manuscript, head of the department or/and organization affiliated with the manuscript cannot be suggested as reviewers. If the editors are not able to find a proper reviewer for the submitted manuscript, they contact the author with a proposal to submit an external review.
Reviewers should not participate in the review and evaluation of manuscripts in which they are personally interested and are required to inform the editors about their conflicts of interest.
All reviewers are notified that manuscripts submitted to the journal are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information not subject to disclosure.
Reviewers are prohibited from: using the manuscript for their own needs and the needs of third parties; disclose the information contained in the manuscript before its publication; transfer the manuscript for review to another person without the consent of the editor-in-chief.
The decision to appoint a reviewer for the article is made by the editor-in-chief, executive editor or deputy editor-in-chief.
The executive editor sends a manuscript file to the reviewer by e-mail without information about the authors of the manuscript.
The review period should not exceed 30 calendar days. This period is controlled by the editors; depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended.
If it is impossible to perform a peer-review, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board by reply letter within three days from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
The text of the review is compiled in accordance with the form approved by the editorial board. The last sentence in the text of the review should be one of the following conclusions:
Manuscript accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by a proofreader, editor, and layout specialist.
Minor revisions are required.
Major revisions and second round of peer review are required. The corresponding author needs to revise paper and then upload revised version to the Journal’s site.
Manuscript denied. The corresponding author receives a well-argued denial.
Manuscript needs to be sent to another reviewer.
The reviewer must give an objective assessment of the manuscript, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor's attention to the significant or partial similarity of the text of the manuscript with any other previously published articles.
The executive editor or deputy editor-in-chief notifies the corresponding author of the peer-review results within 5 working days from the date of receipt of the reviews. If the manuscript needs revisions, response to reviewer’s comments, or it was denied, the author is sent an anonymous copy of the review.
The authors respond point by point to each reviewer's comment with agreement (and an indication of the changes made to the text of the manuscript) or a reasoned answer substantiating their disagreement with the reviewer's comment.
If the article undergoes revision, the date of its receipt by the editors is the date when the authors return the revised article. The modified version of the article which required major revisions is re-sent for the review.
The same manuscript cannot undergo more than 3 rounds of peer-review.
If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, he should submit a well-reasoned response to the editorial office. In the event the author and the reviewers face insoluble conflicts regarding the manuscript, the editorial office is eligible to send it for additional reviewing. In a conflict situation, the decision is to be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Having a positive review (both initial and after the revision of the article by the authors) is not enough for an article to be accepted for publishing. The final decision is made by the editorial board based on the scientific value of the work and its relevance to the subject of the journal. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief. The decision of the editorial board for each article is recorded in the editorial board meeting record.
The managing editor or deputy editor-in-chief are responsible for the follow-up of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
The reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
The journal editorial board of the journal does not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. Manuscripts that receive a negative result from the reviewer are not published and are also not returned back to the author.
