Peer-review process

Scientific articles peer-reviewing is carried out by expert evaluation of compliance with established requirements, quality and originality of provided manuscripts. The accuracy of facts and data introduced in an article, validity of conclusions drawn, recommendations provided, as well as scientific and practical level of the article are ensured both by the author and the reviewer. The Editorial Board of the Journal uses double-blind review:

  • the reviewer doesn’t disclose personal information about an author / authors;
  • the author/authors doesn’t disclose personal information about the reviewer.

The peer-review process includes the following stages:

Stage I: manuscripts selection and registration

After receiving the article manuscript by the Editorial Board, the content is checked by the secretary of the Editorial Board for compliance with the requirements regarding content and design of an article, then they are registered in the scientific articles manuscripts’ register book by ordinal number and date of receipt. If materials do not meet the set requirements, they are not accepted for consideration, and the author/authors group receives an e-mail within three days period.

An obligatory requirement: the author/authors without an academic degree is obliged to provide 2 reviews (or scanned copies of the reviews, in case if the author sends materials to an e-mail address) of Doctors of Philosophy / Doctors in the relevant specialty along with the article manuscript, which will ensure open peer review. If one of the authors of authors group obtains a doctorate degree, no reviews are provided.

At this stage of peer-reviewing it is possible to submit academic advisers’ reviews, reviews of applicants obtaining academic degrees –  articles authors. One review may be submitted by a specialist without an academic degree and / or academic title who has some practical experience in the relevant field.

Stage 2: Reviewing the manuscript by a co-chair of the Editorial Board and identifying reviewers

A co-chair of the Editorial Board or his deputy/deputies analyzes the manuscript for compliance with a specific field of science and the Journal requirements as to the article’s content, interest in publication among edition readers, relevance for modern science. In case of a positive conclusion, he/she appoints a responsible editor from among the members of the Editorial Board to organize the process of manuscript peer reviewing.

The number of reviewers should be at least two. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience and available published research papers in the field. At this stage, the co-author of the peer-reviewed article can not be the reviewer, as well as academic advisers of applicants obtaining an academic degree.

Stage 3: Review of manuscripts by the reviewers, their interaction with the responsible editor and authors

Reviewers analyze manuscripts and send designed according to the established form reviews (while e-mail correspondence − scanned copies of reviews) to the Editorial Board within ten days period.

One of the options for drawing conclusion as to a manuscript is reflected in the review:

1) recommend the article without changes for publication;

2) recommend the article for publication, taking into account the comments and recommendations of the reviewer who agree with the author/authors;

3) return the article to the author for study with further revision;

4) reject the author/authors in publication of the article.

The interaction between the reviewers and authors of the articles is ensured by the responsible secretary of the Editorial Board, who agrees with the authors on changes to the manuscript in case of any comments and recommendations from the reviewers. The editorial board informs the author of the decision to accept the manuscript for publication at his request.

The reviewer must reflect evaluation in reviews regarding:

 - correspondence of article title to its content, of article content to the thematic focus of the Journal;
- article relevance;
- level of published papers analysis on the topic of the article;
- methodological basis for research;
- level of article topic disclosure in accordance with its purpose;
- reliability of conclusions;
- accuracy of references to the sources used, in particular availability of authors’ research papers mentioned in the text of an article.