Peer Review

Each article submitted for publication is carefully examined by the editorial team. It is checked whether the requirements presented for the structure of the articles have been met and whether it is related to the theme of the journal. For scientific review, each article (without author’s/authors’ data) is sent to reviewers for evaluation.

The review of all articles is ensured by the editorial office.

The review is carried out in a “double-blind” method. The term of submission for review is up to 2 weeks.

The reviewers’ comments are forwarded by the editorial office to the author in order to make necessary changes.

After the author makes the necessary changes, the checked article is sent back to the reviewers.

If at least one of the reviewers finds that the article does not meet the scientific terms of publication, the Editorial Board may refuse to publish it.

The scientific review is carried out by the leading specialists in the field of the article under observation. The appointed scientific reviewers may or may not be members of the Journal Scientific (Editorial) Board.

The reviewer should fill out the following form and submit it to the editorial office.

Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Confidential information or ideas, which underwent an expert review, should not be used for personal gain.

The object of review is the outcome of the study, not the author. The opinion of the expert must be unbiased. Personal criticism of the author is not allowed, and arguments in expert conclusions with reference to the author’s gender, nationality, religion and other personal characteristics are not allowed.

The review should be implemented impartially, and remarks should be formulated with clear arguments so that the authors can use them to improve the article.

The review should be summarized with one of the following conclusions, providing the necessary justifications in the appropriate section of the review form:

       In addition to the reasons related to the scientific contents of the article, the reviewers can also reject the original article in case they are convinced that there are elements of plagiarism in the work.

Any selected reviewer who considers the submitted research to be beyond the scope of their professional knowledge or believes that it is impossible to review it within the specified period should contact the editor of the periodical with a proposal to withdraw them from the review process.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or affiliation with any of the article’s authors, companies or institutions. In such cases, the reviewer returns the article to the editorial office, mentioning the specific manifestations of conflict of interest.

The editorial office ensures privacy of the reviewers’ personal data.