Rules of reviewing

  1. The decision on the publication is accepted by the journal’s editorial staff on the basis of reviews that contain the reviewers’ expert evaluations considering compliance of the submitted materials with a thematic scope of the science journal, their scholarly importance and relevance.
  2. One-way and/or two-way blind review is/are used in the journal (the reviewer does not know, who is the author of article, the author of article does not know, who is the reviewer). This review is carried out by forces of the journal editorial board members or third-party experts from the expert database (reviewers) on behalf of the publisher.
  3. In each case the time limits of reviewing is determined by the editorial staff with consideration for conditions for the maximum prompt publication of articles.
  4. The review must contain a qualified analysis of the article material and its objective evaluation. The reviewer gives a recommendation (positive or negative) about the possibility for publication of the article.
  5. The editorial office sends notes to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations when preparing a new version of an article or refute them in a well-argued manner. The new article reworked by author is resent to the author for reviewing. In the case of the reviewer’s positive opinion the article is queued for publication.
  6. The ultimate decision on publication of the controversial articles is accepted by the chief editor or deputy chief editor.
  7. The reviewer cannot be the author (co-author) of the peer-reviewed article.
  8. Responsibility for the quality of the reviews and timeliness of reviewing manuscripts of articles remain with the chief editor of the journal.