Review policy and procedure (type of review, reviewer selection criteria, deadlines, forms)
Materials submitted for publication in the journal must meet the requirements for design established by the editorial office.
Before the start of the review, the text is checked for academic plagiarism. Based on the results of the check, the reviewers make a decision on the possibility of passing the next stages of review.
Reviewers (at least two) are determined by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief responsible for the next issue of the journal. Reviewers may be members of the editorial board and/or external experts (if necessary) who are specialists in the relevant scientific field. When determining reviewers, the topic and specialty in which the scientific article is presented are taken into account.
Double-blind review is used, according to which the reviewer does not know the author, and the author does not know the reviewer, which ensures maximum objectivity of the review.
The review procedure cannot last more than one month from the date of receipt of the materials by the editorial office.
The review covers the following issues:
- compliance of the article topic with the scientific profile of the journal;
- relevance of the article's issues;
- representativeness of the latest studies cited on the topic of the article;
- sufficiency of substantiation of the main research results;
- validity of the conclusions;
- decision on the possibility of publication in the journal.
Based on the results of familiarization with the manuscript of the article, the reviewer sends one of the following recommendations to the editorial office:
- Recommend the article for publication.
- Recommend the article for publication after revision by the author, taking into account the specified comments.
- Recommend the article for publication after radical revision.
- Refuse to publish the article, indicating the reasons for such a decision.
The editorial office sends the reviewer's comments and recommendations to the author by e-mail. The author takes them into account and finalizes or revises the article, or sends a reasoned refusal to accept the reviewers' recommendations (comments).
In the event of receiving a review with comments, during the revision, the author highlights in the revised electronic version of the article parts of the changed or added text, which is necessary for the reviewer to promptly check the implementation of the comments taken into account.
In the event of receiving a review with a recommendation for a radical revision of the article, after eliminating the shortcomings indicated in the review and submitting the revised article, it undergoes a second review.
After correcting the comments or accepting the author's justification, the editorial board makes the final decision on the publication of the article.
The original reviews are stored by the journal's editorial office for two years.
