Review Procedure

Review of scholarly articles is carried out by expert assessment of compliance with the established requirements, quality, and originality of the submitted manuscripts. Ensuring the reliability of the facts and data presented in the articles, the validity of the conclusions, the recommendations provided, as well as its academic and practical level, in addition to the author, the conclusions are also reviewed by the reviewer. The editorial board uses double-blind review.

REVIEWING PROCEDURE

Stage I: Selection and registration of manuscripts

After receiving the article manuscript to the editorial board, the materials are checked by the secretary of the editorial board for compliance with the requirements regarding the content and design of the article, after which they are registered in the journal of manuscripts with the serial number and date receipt. If the materials do not meet the established requirements, they are not accepted for consideration, and the author / co-authors within three days receive an appropriate notification by e-mail.

Mandatory requirement: if the author(s) does not have a scientific degree, he/she is required to submit, together with the manuscript of the article, 2 reviews (or scanned copies of reviews, if the materials are submitted to the editorial office's email address) from Doctors of Philosophy/Doctors of Science in the relevant specialty. If one of the authors of the author team has a Doctor of Science degree, reviews are not submitted.

Stage 2: Consideration of the manuscript by the chairman of the editorial board and the definition of reviewers

The head of the editorial board or his deputy/deputies analyzes the manuscript for compliance with a certain field of science and the journal's requirements regarding content, interest of the publication for the journal's readers, relevance for modern science. In case of a positive conclusion, he appoints a responsible editor from among the members of the editorial board to organize the manuscript review process.

The number of reviewers must be at least two. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience and the scientific publications available in this area. At this stage, the reviewer cannot be a co-author of the article being reviewed, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree.

Stage 3: Analysis of manuscripts by reviewers, their interaction with the executive editor and authors

Reviewers make analysis of manuscripts and within ten day submit to the editorial board the written (in the case of e-mail communication – scan copies of reviews) reviews according to the established review form.

The review indicates one of the conclusions for the manuscript:

1) to recommend the article for publication without changes;

2) to recommend the article for publication taking into account the reviewer’s comments and recommendations, which are agreed with the author / authors;

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

4) to refuse the author/authors to publish the article.

The communication between reviewers, authors of articles is provided by the executive secretary of the editorial board who, in the case of comments and recommendations of reviewers, agrees with authors concerning changes in the manuscript.