The Journal uses a system of independent scientific review in order to ensure high quality of publications, objectivity of evaluation and adherence to the principles of academic integrity.
1. Each manuscript is reviewed by the Editorial Board before publication. If it does not meet the minimum requirements (in terms of subject matter, scientific level, availability of scientific results and design), then the author is sent a motivated refusal. Otherwise, the manuscript is reviewed.
For the publication of articles by master’s students, postgraduate students, candidates for the scientific degree of PhDs, in addition to the review, a recommendation from the relevant department or scientific supervisor must be submitted.
2. The Journal adopts a single-blind type of review (the reviewer knows about the author, the author does not know about the reviewer). The reviewer is selected according to the recommendation of a member of the Editorial Board or an invited specialist competent in the field of knowledge to which the content of the manuscript belongs. If necessary, the manuscript is sent to two reviewers (for example, when its topic is at the junction of different scientific disciplines). The decision on the selection of a reviewer belongs to the Editor-in-Chief.
3. The reviewer must review the article within three working days from the moment of its receipt and send the Editor-in-Chief (by e-mail) an agreement or a reasoned refusal to review.
The review period in each individual case is determined taking into account the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article. The standard review period is from 1 to 3 weeks, but may vary depending on the complexity of the topic and the workload of the reviewers.
4. The review must clearly characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the study, and correlate the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts. A necessary element of the review must be the reviewer’s assessment of the author’s personal contribution to the solution of the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic and accessibility of the presentation of the scientific nature of the material, as well as to draw a conclusion about the reliability and validity of the author’s conclusions.
Download the form for reviewer
5. After receiving the review, the Editorial Board makes a final decision on the publication or refusal to publish the article. Based on the decision made, a letter is sent to the author (authors) via e-mail, informing them of the decision made to publish their article. If the received review contains comments, the author is recommended to revise the manuscript, taking into account these comments and send it for re-review. In the event of rejection of publication, the author is sent a reasoned refusal, to which the review is attached, while the reviewers remain anonymous.
6. Positive peer reviews alone do not constitute sufficient grounds for publication. The final decision regarding the suitability of an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
In the case of significant critical remarks by the reviewer and in the case of a general positive recommendation, the Editorial Board may classify the material as polemical and publish it in the order of scientific discussion.
All materials submitted to the Journal are considered confidential documents. Reviewers do not have the right to use information from the manuscript in their own research or transfer the manuscript to third parties without the permission of the Editorial Board.