Peer review process

1. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office are subject to mandatory "double blind" review: the author of the reviewed article is unknown to the reviewers, and the last name of the reviewers is unknown to the author of the article. At least two reviewers are involved in the review
2. The submitted scientific article is considered by the responsible secretary on the subject of compliance of the journal profile, requirements for registration and sent to the review of a specialist (doctor or candidate of sciences), which has the closest subject to scientific specialization.
3. The review covers the following issues:
- novelty of the theme, new ideas, generalizations of known or repetitions;
- correspondence of the content of the article stated in the title of the topic;
- the reasonableness of the statement and the depth of problem development;
- conformity of the chosen methodology and research methods with the set goals;
- content of illustrative material;
- adequacy and reliability of experimental data;
- substantiation of the presented conclusions;
- the practical significance of the article.
4. Review is conducted double "blind". Reviewers (two) do not know the author of the reviewed article, and the name of the reviewers is unknown to the author of the article.
5. If there is a recommendation in the review regarding the correction or revision of the article, the text of the review is sent to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version or to substantiate them (partially or completely) to refute them.
6. The revised article is redone to the reviewer who made critical remarks.
7. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office of the journal. The article may be aimed at re-reviewing or agreeing to the editorial board.
8. The editorial staff reserves the right to reject articles in case of failure or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes of the editorial staff.
9. In case of refusal to publish the article the editorial office sends the author a motivated refusal.
10. In the presence of negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or one negative on its revised version, the article is rejected without consideration by other members of the editorial board.
11. After the editorial board decides on the admission of an article to the publication, the responsible secretary shall inform the author about it and indicate the publication period.
12. The maximum period of review - between the dates of receipt of the manuscript to the editorial board and the issuance of the editorial board of the decision - is two months.
13. The original reviews are stored in the editorial office for three years.


Reviewers must:

  • notify Editorial staff of any conflicts of interests that may determine their findings;
  • protect the confidentiality of information relating to the manuscript;
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an reviewers' own research without the express written consent of the author.

See also: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.