Review Process

I. General conditions

1.1. All articles submitted to the editorial board go through the review process.
1.2. The review is conducted confidentially on the principle of double-blind peer-review – when neither authors nor reviewer know each other. Interaction between the author and the reviewer is possible provided it improves the style and logic of the presentation of the research material.
1.3. Only those articles which have scientific value and contribute to the solution of actual problems and tasks are accepted for publication. We separately assess the degree of compliance with the rules for preparing the article for publication.
1.4. The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor research practices and balance the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers, and the institution where the research was conducted. The number and type of manuscripts submitted for review, as well as the number of reviewers, the review procedure itself and the comments of the reviewers may vary.
1.5. Review of manuscripts is confidential. By submitting the manuscript, the author trusts the editors with the results of their scientific work. Disclosure of confidential details of the manuscript review violates the author's rights.
1.6. Editors do not disclose information about the manuscript (including information about its receipt, reviewing time, review process, peer review comments, and the final decision) to anyone other than publisher and reviewers themselves. Breach of confidentiality is possible (only) in case of an official statement of inaccuracy or falsification of article materials. In all other cases maintenance of confidentiality is mandatory.
1.7. All manuscripts are subject to mandatory verification of the uniqueness of the author's text using appropriate software.

II. Review structure

2.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board will be sent to two reviewers, according to the area of research. The reviewers are assigned by the Chief Editor. By the decision of the Chief Editor of the journal (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of choosing the reviewers is being handled at a meeting of the editorial board.

2.2. The peer review of the submitted material takes 14 days. The review period may vary with certain conditions for the most objective evaluation of the quality of the materials provided but will not exceed one calendar month.

2.3. The conclusion of reviewers serves the basis for the decision-making regarding publication, refinement or rejection of the manuscript. The corresponding decision shall be forwarded to the author by e-mail (sms message, etc.).