Peer-review

The Journal only publishes the manuscripts recommended by the reviewers.

The Editors provide a double-blind peer review of all submissions.

The Reviewers are appointed by the  Editor-in-chief or the Deputy Editor.

The double-blind peer review can be conducted by the members of the editorial board or by acknowledged academic in the area of research who have recent publications on the related topic.

The Reviewer defines the type and content of the article; evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant for the scientific community, possesses scientific novelty and practical significance, corresponds to the profile of the Journal; checks the text for consistency and reliability of research results; decides if the title corresponds to the content; and assesses the quality of the abstract, illustrative material, and the references.

Based on the results, the reviewer produces a reasoned opinion:

• the manuscript can be recommended for publication;
• the manuscript can be recommended for publication after some improvement;
• the manuscript cannot be recommended for publication (reasons for rejection).

The Reviewers are notified about the manuscripts being the authors' private owner rights and cannot be subject to public disclosure. The Reviewers are not allowed to copy the articles for their private needs. Reviewing is strictly confidential. Violation of confidentiality is impossible unless the Reviewer reports unreliability or counterfeiting.

Reviewing should not exceed three months from the day the Reviewer received the manuscript.

If the Reviewer points out that the manuscript requires improvement, it is sent to the author for follow-on revision.

The Author receives the Review by email unsigned by the Reviewer and with no references to their name, affiliations, status, or any other information that could reveal the Reviewer’s identity.

If the article underwent a considerable follow-on revision, it is again sent to the same Reviewer who gave the critical remarks. The Editors reserve the right to reject the articles in case of the Author's inability or unwillingness to follow the recommendations.

In case of two negative Reviews or one negative Review on the revised variant, the manuscript is rejected without considering by other members of the Editorial Board.

The Author of the rejected article receives a motivated refusal. The Reviewer's name may be reported to the author provided that the former gives consent to it.

After reviewing, the  Editor-in-chief or the Editorial Board make the final decision.