Reviewing scientific articles constitutes a pivotal stage in the scientific process, as it contributes to ensuring the quality and objectivity of publications. All the articles in the issue are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers, double "blind" review of articles is ensured (reviewers don’t know information about authors, and authors don’t know information about reviewers).

Reviewers of the scientific materials are appointed by the managing secretary of the Editorial Team of the Collection.

To review and assess scientific articles the leading scientists in the relevant fields of scientific knowledge and highly skilled practitioners are attracted.

Reviewers cannot be the article authors’ and co-authors’ supervisors, as well as rectors and vice-rectors of higher educational institutions, heads of organizations and their deputies,  members of staff departments, laboratories, sectors, where they work.

The Editorial Team keeps in secret the names of the reviewers.


The Editorial Board of the Collection acknowledges the significance of the peer review process and advises reviewers to familiarize themselves with and adhere to the Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers established by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The following are recommendations for reviewers:

  1. Objectivity and Neutrality. Reviewers should steer clear of personal biases or preconceived notions. The reviewer's duty is to assess the scientific quality and research methodology.
  2. Confidentiality: Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the review process. Revealing information about the article or its authors without the editorial board's permission is strictly prohibited.
  3. Competence: Reviewers should select articles in their field of expertise. If the editorial board assigns a review for an article outside the reviewer's area of expertise, they should decline the assignment.
  4. Constructive Criticism: When identifying shortcomings, reviewers should provide constructive advice that could aid authors in enhancing their work.
  5. Timelines: Reviewers should adhere to the stipulated deadlines for submitting reviews (8 weeks). This practice contributes to the efficiency of the editorial process.
  6. Ethical Norms: In the event of detecting possible plagiarism, inaccurate data, ethical violations, or having doubts, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial board.
  7. Declining a Review Request: If a reviewer is unable to provide an objective review or is constrained by time, they should promptly notify the editorial board.

According to the results of peer-review process and editorial check-up of the paper, the author receives the answer by email:

  • The article is accepted
  • The article needs editing
  • The article is rejected

Authors must address all comments and recommendations received from the reviewers within 20 days of receipt of the notification for minor revisions and within 45 days for major revisions. Revision process might comprise multiple rounds until editor is satisfied with all edits and is able to reach his/her decision to accept article for publishing.

Also, the work can be rechecked for conformity with Publication ethical guidelines. Typically, this additional step is included in case of major changes to the manuscript.

Reasons for rejection

▪ Lack of scientific significance or lack of originality;

▪ Work is outside of aim and scope for the Publication;

▪ Submission does not conform to the formal requirements or ethical guideline of the Publication;

▪ Due to citation manipulation;

▪ Not addressing reviewer comments/recommendations and not making all necessary measures;

▪ Work reveals confidential information without appropriate authorization.