Peer-review process


All submitted manuscripts go through the procedure of reviewing. The review procedure consists of two main stages.

At the first stage, the Executive Secretary carries out a primary check of the manuscript for one week for compliance with the journal’s problematics, “Articles Requirements” and the presence of plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not correspond to the problematics of the journal, and in which the level of plagiarism exceeds 20%, are rejected.

At the second stage, the manuscript is sent for independent review to a scientist who carries out research in the relevant specialty.

According to the principle of “double-blind peer review”, the reviewer has no information about the author and vice versa.

The review period is 2-4 weeks.

According to the results of the review, the article may be:

  • recommended for publication in the author's version;
  • recommended for publication after revision. The term of the article's revision should not exceed one month. After revision, the article is sent for re-review;
  • not recommended for publication. In this case, the author has the right to provide the editors with a reasoned response to the review.

The decision to re-review the article is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviews are stored in the editorial office for three years.

The result of the review is based on the offered recommendations of the reviewers and decision of the editor on publication of the article is final. In the case of a positive result of the review, the manuscript is sent to the editor for further processing and publication. If necessary, the manuscript is sent to the author for revision in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewer(s). Revised manuscript sent for re-review. In the case of the negative results of the review, the author receives the information that the article is not accepted for publication with motivated refusal. The manuscript is not returned to the author.

As a result of the positive review, the manuscript is sent to the editorial staff for further editing and publication.

If necessary, the manuscript should be reviewed, along with all the reviewer's comments and wishes. The revised version of the manuscript is sent for re-review.

In case of negative review result, the author is sent a review explaining the reason for the refusal. The manuscript of the author is not returned.

Journal editors treat the submitted manuscript and all communication with authors and referees as confidential. Authors must also treat communication with the journal as confidential: correspondence with the journal, reviewers' reports and other confidential material must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicised without prior permission from the editors, whether or not the submission is eventually published.

Implementation to editorial ethics

The original text is not to be edited without the agreement of the author, so as not to violate the author's personal (non-property) right to the manuscript. The editorial secret is kept, that is, without the consent of the author the features of work on the manuscript should not be reveled, discussing the advantages and disadvantages, comments and corrections, the confidentiality of reviews.

The intervention of the editor in the author's text may be dictated by the requirements of compliance with the publishing standards and justified by the need to correct errors in agreement with the author.