- Academic papers submitted to the Editorial Office have to pass through the process of reviewing by highly qualified experts in the relevant research fields. The experts hold the academic degrees (Doctors of Science or Candidates of Science (PhD) and have experience in the related studies, as well as academic publications. In case of a need, the Chairman of the Editorial Board invites additional scientific experts. If authors’ views significantly differ from the reviewer’s views, the article is submitted to the third party reviewer, while it is also discussed at the meeting of the Editorial Board.
The reviewers are invited by the Chairman of the Editorial Board and the Deputy Chairman.
The blind peer review of two experts is conducted for all papers.
- The reviewer should work on the article within 10–12 business days since the date of receipt and
submit his/her review to the Editorial Board in person or by e-mail. If the reviewer is unable to review this article, he/she should send the motivated rejection within 3 days. The length of reviewing is identified individually in order to ensure the most expeditious publication of the article, but must not exceed two weeks.
- The review should clearly indentify the theoretical or practical significance of the study, and estimate the links between the article’s title, objectives and conclusions with the existing scientific concepts. The reviewer should evaluate author’s personal contribution to the study of research problems, its relevance and novelty. It is purposeful to mention the conformity of style, logics and comprehensibility of the presentation of research findings, as well as completeness and adequacy of representation in the title and the extended abstracts. Authors’ conclusions might be evaluated in terms of reliability and validity, as well as ethical considerations, including plagiarism. The review should be based on the proposed form, signed by the reviewer with identifying his affiliation, position, academic degree and title, date of signing the review.
- In the review provides additional comments and suggestions for the author, the paper is sent to the author with a confidential review.
When finalizing the articles with regard to the comments of reviewers, the author should mark the revised text, as well as amendments in the text, tables, figures and other additional information in order to enable the timely informing of the reviewer about the accepted suggestions.
After article’s updating, the texts are sent to the reviewer to verify the accuracy of the revisions and amendments.
The final decision on publishing of the article is made by the Editorial Boars after receipt of the reviewer’s conclusion.
- The original texts of reviews are kept in the Editorial Office of the Journal for two years.
- In case of the reviewer’s multiple critical comments, but general positive recommendations for publishing, the article might be placed in the category of polemical studies and marked with the note“Scientific discussion”.