Peer-review process

The journal accepts manuscripts on the mentioned scientific issues. The chief editor may immediately reject a manuscript that does not meet the publication's aims, scope, or requirements.
The journal supports international high standards of the peer review process and, therefore, practices double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names, and all personal information is previously removed from the paper's texts and files.
The submitted articles are sent for review to two independent experts. The reviewers view the article's abstract and consent or refuse to review this paper. In the case of refusal, other reviewers are appointed.
The reviewers consider the material and estimate its scientific level by filling out the "Review Form," specifying their remarks, notes, and comments. Additionally, experts may upload files with corrections or materials that can be used to revise the article.

After filling out the basic "Review Form," experts select one of the offered recommendations:

  • Accept Submission – the article is ready for publication and accepted without changes
  • Revisions Required – the article is accepted if the author takes into account the indicated remarks
  • Resubmit for Review –  the article needs a revision and repeated reviewing
  • Resubmit Elsewhere – the subject of the article corresponds to another edition
  • Decline Submission – the article does not correspond to the requirements of the edition
  • See Comments – choose in the case when none of the previous recommendations is satisfied

Reviewing the article lasts from 3 to 8 weeks.

After the reviewing process is completed, all corresponding information is sent to the author. The author improves the article and uploads an updated version. If the article is not returned in 2 months or the editors are not informed about the delay, the article is removed from the turn and deleted.

The reviewers re-examine the improved manuscript and provide a recommendation on the possibility of its further publication.

The purpose of the review is a substantive expert assessment of the quality of a scientific article based on the following criteria:

  • Correspondence to the publication policy;
  • Correspondence of the paper title to its content;
  • Formulation of the problem or task being solved;
  • Substantiation of the relevance of the presented materials;
  • The research character of the paper;
  • Reasoning of the exposition and conclusions, including references to the used and other information sources;
  • Scientific novelty and practical significance of the obtained results;
  • Presence of conclusions based on the results of the paper;
  • Presence of a list of sources used.

In case of receiving a negative review, the editorial board reserves the right not to publish the article.

The procedure for appealing a rejected article:

  1. If the author disagrees with specific reviewer comments, they have the right to submit an appeal to the editorial board in the format of "reviewer's comment—author's comment." This document is sent to the reviewer, and a decision is made jointly with the editorial board regarding the manuscript.
  2. When the reviewers provide mutually opposite resolutions regarding the submitted manuscript (accept/reject), the editorial team contacts them. The editorial team jointly considers all the comments to coordinate the position regarding the further publication of the material.
  3. The editorial board may appoint an extra independent expert to make a decision.