PEER REVIEW

  1. The editorial staff ensures an independent and objective review of all submitted articles, which correspond to the journal topics. The double blind review is performed with the aim of complying with the principles of an objective and independent review of scientific works, which is anonymous both for the reviewers and for the authors.

  2. After the reviews are received by the editorial board, all articles must pass through the procedure of initial consideration and verification for compliance to the thematic field and basic requirements of the journal. In case of non-compliance to the thematic field and editorial requirements, an article is rejected without initiating review, about which the author receives an e-mail notification.

  3. The articles, which have passed the initial consideration, are forwarded to independent reviewers for review. The reviewers are the members of the editorial council as well as invited experts, which have published works on similar topics within the last three years.

  4. The reviewed articles are considered confidentially prior to its publications. The editorial board takes measures for preventing conflicts of interests between authors and reviewers. The reviewers are notified that the articles, which have been sent to them, are the intellectual property of the authors and are related to the information, which shall not be disclosed. The reviewers are not allowed to use materials of the articles without the authors' consent. The breach of confidentiality is possible only in case of necessity of public announcement on the unreliability or falsifications of materials presented in the article.

  5. The deadline for a review in each particular case is established in accordance with the reviewer with regard to providing conditions for prompt publication of article.

  6. On the basis of the reviewing results, the review is made, in which the following information is specified:
    Ц the relevance of the provided material:
    Ц the availability/absence of scientific novelty of research;
    Ц the consistency of stating goals and problems of the research;
    Ц the comprehensiveness of presenting the material;
    Ц the evaluation for structuring of the research and style of writing;
    Ц the field of practical applicability of the materials in the article;
    Ц the justified conclusion on possibility of article publication ("recommended", "recommended considering the corrections, according to the reviewer's remarks" or "not recommended"), in case of necessity the recommendations for improving the article are provided.

  7. After receiving positive conclusion from the reviewer, the article is added to editorial portfolio prior to publication. This information is sent to the author via e-mail notification.

  8. If the review contains recommendations for corrections or re-working the article, the journal's editorial board sends the review text to the author with the suggestion to implement the remarks of the reviewer or counter the remarks partially or completely with substantiated comments. The rewrite of the article shall not take more than two months since the moment of sending an e-mail notification to the authors about the necessity of implementing the changes. The rewritten article is re-submitted for review. This procedure is applied to each article not more than once.

  9. If after the second review the reviewer has critical remarks to the article, then the article is submitted for consideration to the editorial council, which decides if it should be rejected or additionally reviewed by a new set of reviewers. This procedure is applied to each article not more than once.

  10. If after additional review the article is still not recommended for publication, then it is rejected by the editorial board without the right of further processing. This decision is final and is sent to the author via e-mail. The editorial board does not discuss the rejection of the articles with the authors.

  11. In case if the author refuses to rewrite the article according to the remarks specified in the review, the author shall notify the editorial board via e-mail on refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the article, sent for rewritting within four months, beginning from the day of sending the review, the editorial board drops the article from publication even if there is no written refusal to rewrite the article by the author. The authors shall receive the notification on dropping the article from publication due to the expiration of the deadline for rewritting.

  12. The final decision on admitting the article for publication is taken by the editorial board in accordance with the reviewers' recommendations.

  13. The reviews are kept by the editorial board office within five years since the date it was received.
ѕјќ