All the articles will be checked for the plagiarism using the specialized program «AntiPlagiarism.net».
All the submitted manuscripts are subject to a preliminary review process, which includes internal review of articles by members of the Editorial Board and external reviewing performed by independent experts in accordance with the double-blind peer-review procedure based on the principle of objectivity and in accordance with the highest international academic quality standards.
The Editorial Board reserves the right either to edit or to reject the materials of articles that are executed with violation of the stated requirements.
The primary expert review of a scientific article is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief. Subsequently, the material is transmitted for reviewing by a member of the Editorial Board or an external reviewer who is a specialist in the correspondent subject field.
Reviewers (both members of the Editorial Board and external reviewers) should be recognized specialists in the field addressed by the Author of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this research field (preferably within the last 5 years). Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review due to a conflict of interests.
After reviewing a scientific article, the reviewer can:
- recommend the article for printing/publishing on the website;
- recommend the article for printing/publishing on the website of the publication after the Author reviews it taking into account the reviewer’s comments and recommendations;
- recommend the article for additional review by another specialist;
- do not recommend the article for printing/publishing on the website.
If the reviewer recommends the article to be printed after revision taking into account comments or does not recommend the article for printing/publishing, the review must state the reason for the decision.
The Editorial Board recommends using the standard review form developed by the editors for reviewing posted on the journal’s website. Anonymous/blind review of the article (download PDF file).
Expert evaluation of scientific articles should highlight the following aspects:
- the relevance of the scientific problem addressed by the author;
- methodological level of the article;
- scientific, theoretical and applied (if any) value of the performed research;
- the correctness of the added calculations, graphs, drawings;
- conformity of the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts;
- adherence by the authors of the requirements of scientific ethics, correctness of references.
It is advisable the review to indicate compliance with the style, logic and comprehensibility of scientific calculations, as well as to draw a conclusion on the reliability and validity of the Author(s)’s conclusions in the work submitted.
Scientific articles may be sent for additional review in the following cases:
- insufficient qualification of the expert on the issues considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of primary expert judgment;
- acute discussion of the provisions stated in the scientific article.
Article review period is up to 90 days.
In the case of any competing interests, another expert is appointed by the Editor-in-Chief.
According to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, certain articles by prominent scholars, as well as specially invited articles, may be exempted from the standard review procedure.
In the case of comments, the article is sent to the Author for revision. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a conclusion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial staff of a positive review of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) regarding the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is reviewed at the meeting of the working group of the editorial board and sent for additional review by another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the articles in case of the author’s refusal to take into account the comments of the reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with the obligatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.
The final decision on the possibility and relevance of publication is taken by the Editor-in-Chief (or – on his behalf – by a member of the editorial board), and, if necessary, by the meeting of the editorial board. After deciding to allow the article to be printed, the executive secretary will notify the Author of the decision and indicate the expected publication period.
The Author of the article is fully responsible for the copyright violation, the reliability of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations presented in the article.