Procedure for reviewing papers
The journal employs single-blind peer review model, and a review of the submitted article consists of two stages:
Stage 1: formal verification by the Editor;
Stage 2: content analysis by the external expert(s) or/and Editorial Council member(s).
The formal verification of the article assumes the compliance of the manuscript with the following criteria:
- originality of the article’s text (using Anti-plagiarism system),
- originality of the article’s results (the main results of the paper should be previously unpublished in scientific journals),
- compliance of the scope of articles with the recommendations established in the content requirements,
- absence of grammatical errors,
- compliance with the requirements for the design of articles.
If gross or massive violations of the author guidelines are detected, the article is rejected on a formal basis. In this case, the authors have the right to resubmit once the revised version of the article.
Next, to perform content analysis, the article is sent for review to external expert(s) or/and Editorial Council member(s). Each reviewer evaluates the article according to the following criteria:
- compliance with the scope of the journal,
- scientific significance,
- practical significance,
- reliability of the results,
- presentation quality.
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the Editorial Board assigns the article one of the following statuses:
- accept to publication,
- publication is possible after revision,
- reject.
The authors are sent the decision and reviewers comments.
If the article is accepted for publication, the authors have to prepare and submit the final version of the article (see Authors guidelines).
In case the "publication is possible after revision" status, the authors have to submit a revised version of the article (in PDF) with their response on the reviewer(s) remarks (in PDF, see a template of the authors' response in MS Word format). Then the article passes both stages of the review once again. The authors can refuse to follow the recommendations of the reviewer(s) motivating this in their response. If the reviewer disagrees with the authors' motivations, the Editorial Board can reject the article.
In case of the "reject" status, the Editorial Board will not consider any further versions of the article.
