The procedure for reviewing of articles is aimed at ensuring the quality of articles published in the journal. All articles submitted to the editorial office for publication are reviewed. The review should provide a comprehensive and objective assessment, analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

The manuscript review is confidential. Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are subject to non-disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the article submitted for review. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement of inaccuracy or falsification of materials, in all other cases, its preservation is mandatory.


Review process:

  1. The author should submit to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the journal.

  2. The responsible secretary conducts a preliminary assessment of the articles submitted to the editorial board, the content of the profile material and the topics of the journal, sends them for review to the members of the editorial board, scientific editorial sections, experts on the discussed issues.

  3. For all articles submitted for review, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined by means of the corresponding software ("Unicheck").
  4. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent to the reviewers by the profile of the study. Chief Editor appoints the reviewers.

  5. The reviewers can be either members of the editorial board of the scientific journal, or third-party highly skilled professionals who have profound professional knowledge and experience in the specific field of the research.

  6. The reviewer usually within 14 days concludes if the article can be printed or not (fills in the standardized form containing the final recommendations).

  7. The review is conducted confidentially on the principles of double-blind review (neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers is taking place through the Executive Secretary of the Editorial Board of the journal.

  8. If the reviewer indicates the necessity of making certain corrections in the article, the article is sent to the author with the suggestion to take into consideration the comments in order to prepare an updated version of the article or to substantiate their refutation. To the revised article, the author attaches a letter, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a motivated conclusion about the possibility of publication.

  9. In case of inconsistency with the reviewer opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide an argumented response to the editorial staff of the journal. In this case, the article is examined at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send an article for additional or new review to another specialist.

  10. The final decision on the possibility and appropriateness of publication is taken by the Chief Editor and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board in general.

  11. The article approved for publication is submitted to the technical editor. Minor corrections of a stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the author's agreement.