The Collection uses a double-blind peer review procedure: the reviewers do not know the author of the reviewed article, and the author does not know the names of the reviewers.

Review procedure:

The submitted scientific article is reviewed by the editor-in-chief for compliance with the thematic profile of the Collection, the general scientific quality of the idea and the topic covered, the quality of the methodology used, as well as the requirements for design. Only after this can the article be submitted for review. At the preliminary review stage, the article may be rejected without being sent for review.

An article that has passed the preliminary selection is checked for plagiarism (see Anti-plagiarism Policy) and is sent for review to two specialists - members of the editorial board or invited external experts who have the scientific specialization closest to the topic.

The review highlights the following issues:

• novelty of the topic and originality of scientific results
• correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title
• validity of the statement and depth of the development of the problem
• correspondence of the chosen methodology and research methods to the set goals
• content of illustrative material (if available)
• sufficiency and reliability of data
• validity of conclusions and their practical significance
• quality and relevance of bibliographic sources

The reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:

1. Recommend for publication without changes.
2. Recommend for publication after minor revision.
3. Recommend for publication after significant revision (with repeated review).
4. Do not recommend for publication.

Terms:

The minimum review period is one month, the maximum is two months. If the review contains recommendations for revision, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments; the author is given 14 days to submit a revised version. The revised article is re-sent for review to the same reviewer.
In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office. The article may be sent for repeated review or submitted for consideration by the editorial board.
The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes of the reviewers. If there are negative reviews from two different reviewers or one negative review for the revised version, the article is rejected.
After the editorial board makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the author is informed about the publication deadlines.
Only one article from one author (including co-authorship) can be published in one issue of the Collection.
Original reviews are stored by the editorial office for three years.

Responsibilities of reviewers:

Reviewers are obliged to: notify the editorial office of any conflicts of interest; maintain confidentiality of information about the manuscript; be objective and constructive in their reviews. Unpublished materials from manuscripts submitted for review cannot be used by reviewers in their own research without the written consent of the authors.
See also: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers