Peer-review process

The responsible secretary of the journal conducts a preliminary check of compliance of the articles of the publication's profile with the requirements for publications and provides them for review by reviewers, specialists in the researched issues.

Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief or, in certain circumstances, by a member of the editorial board. Also, third-party highly qualified specialists with work experience in a specific scientific direction may be involved in the review, as a rule, associate professors, candidates of sciences, professors, doctors of science.

Within 10 working days, the reviewer prepares his opinion on the compliance of the article with all editorial requirements and the possibility of its publication.

Reviewing is conducted confidentially according to the principles of double-blind reviewing (double "blind" reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer knows about each other).

The reviewer questionnaire covers the following questions:

  • Originality of the text;
  • Does the article fit the journal profile?
  • Does the title of the article match the content?
  • Does the abstract reflect the content of the article?
  • Is the relevance of the article sufficiently disclosed?
  • Is the presentation of the text, the structure of the article and its scope satisfactory?
  • Are the conclusions correct? Do they reflect the scientific and practical value of the research?
  • Has the goal(s) of the study been fully realized?
  • Do the given conclusions correspond to the content of the article?
  • Does the bibliography meet the design requirements?
  • Language literacy of the article.

The editorial office notifies the author of the results of the review by e-mail.

If the reviewer notes the need to make corrections, the author revises the article, taking into account the reviewer's wishes or exhaustively argues his position. The reviewer must familiarize himself with the corrected version and decide on the possibility of publication. The date of the reviewer's positive conclusion is considered the date of acceptance of the article for publication.