The procedure for reviewing articles

1. General Review Principle
The editorial board of the journal conducts peer review of all submitted materials that correspond to its thematic scope for the purpose of expert evaluation.

2. Reviewers
Reviewers include experts from the Editorial Board as well as external experts, selected from leading scientists and specialists in the journal's field who hold an academic degree relevant to the topic of the article under review and have publications on the subject within the last five years.
A reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the scientific journal or publisher, conducting a scientific assessment of author materials to determine their suitability for publication.

3. Reviewer Selection
The decision to select a reviewer for article evaluation is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Number of Reviewers
Each article is sent to two reviewers. If necessary, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript for additional review.

5. Confidentiality
Review is conducted confidentially. Personal data and/or scientific affiliation of the author and reviewer are not disclosed to each other (double-blind peer review). Confidentiality may only be breached if a reviewer alleges inaccuracy or falsification of materials presented in the article.

6. Review Timeline
The review process is tailored to each case in order to ensure the most timely publication possible. The review period typically does not exceed one month.

7. Content of the Review
The review should address the following aspects:
a) Correspondence of the article's content to the topic stated in the title;
b) Conformity with modern scientific achievements;
c) Accessibility to readers in terms of language, style, presentation of material, and clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, and formulas;
d) The advisability of publishing the article, considering previously published works;
e) Specific merits and shortcomings of the article, and what corrections and additions should be made by the author.

8. Reviewer Recommendations
Based on the manuscript review, the reviewer provides one of the following recommendations (each decision must be justified):
a) The article is recommended for publication in its present form;
b) The article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
c) The article requires additional review by another specialist;
d) The article cannot be published in the journal.

9. Revision Process
If the review contains recommendations for corrections and revisions, the editorial board sends the author the review text with a proposal to consider them when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The revised article is then sent for another round of review.

10. Author's Refusal to Revise
If the authors decline to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial board of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return a revised version within one month from the date the review was sent, even in the absence of notification from the authors declining to revise, the editorial board removes the manuscript from consideration. In such cases, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the manuscript's withdrawal due to the expiration of the allotted revision period.

11. Resolution of Disagreements
If unresolvable disagreements arise between the author and the reviewers regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board may send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief at a meeting of the editorial board.

12. Publication Decision
The decision to reject or accept a manuscript for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations.

13. Final Editorial Decision
A positive review is not sufficient grounds for publication. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the journal's Editorial Board and recorded in the minutes of its meeting. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial board's decision is not reconsidered.

Grounds for rejecting an article may include:

  • Non-compliance of the presented material with the Journal's thematic scope;

  • Non-compliance with the requirements for articles;

  • Negative expert reviews;

  • A decision by the Editorial Board, recorded in the minutes of its meeting;

  • The author's violation of ethical principles.

14. Notification to Authors
Notification of rejection or acceptance for publication is sent to the author by email or through the publishing system of this website.

15. Archival of Reviews
Original reviews are stored in the editorial board or editorial office for five years.