All submitted articles undergo a thorough review process. Highly qualified specialists – experts in the topic analyzed in the article are invited to review.
The journal proceeds from the fact that reviewing contributes to the objectivity of the editor’s assessment of the received materials, and also, if important comments of the reviewer are taken into account, to increasing the analytical level of the article.
By initiating the review process, the editors undertake to follow the principle of preventing conflicts of interest of the parties. The author or co-author of the work under review, as well as the scientific supervisors of the authors – applicants for an academic degree, cannot act as reviewers. Following the ethical rules, the editorial board adheres to the principle of confidentiality, which extends to the review and publication processes, and also implies maintaining the anonymity of reviewers.
The journal adheres to the practice of double blind reviewing, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous in relation to each other. This guarantees the objectivity of the review and freedom of critical comments on the content of published works.
The author or co-author of the reviewed article, colleagues from the structural division of the author’s institution, as well as the scientific supervisors of the authors – applicants for an academic degree cannot act as reviewers.
The editor considers the reviewer’s comments and, taking into account his opinion, makes the final decision on the publication or rejection of the scientific article. The process of making a decision on the publication or rejection of the work should take no more than a 30-day period. The reviewer expresses his opinion and the final decision on publication by filling out the form.
In case of rejection of the work, the author is notified of this, indicating the reasons for refusing to publish. Reviews are kept by the editorial board for 5 years.
Reviewer Duties
Reviewers treat information related to reviewing articles as strictly confidential data.
Reviews must be written impartially, observing the correctness of scientific discussion.
Reviewers not only clearly, but also reasonably express their opinion.
Reviewers inform the editor-in-chief of any textual or semantic similarity or coincidence between the article under review and any other published work of which they are personally aware. Reviewers must refuse to review manuscripts fraught with a conflict of interest.
