Peer-review process

Peer review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts of scientific articles is carried out to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific works. To this end, the Journal employs a double-blind peer review process:

  • the reviewer does not know the personal information of the author/authors;
  • the author/authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

The scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of their registration and compliance with the Manuscript Requirements set out on the site. In addition, the initial evaluation of the manuscript considers whether it meets the goals of the Journal, and only those contributions that most closely meet our editorial criteria are forwarded for formal review. Those submissions deemed weak or otherwise inappropriate by the editors are immediately rejected without external review. The primary expert review of manuscripts is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Once a manuscript passes the initial review by the editors, it is assigned to at least 2 independent experts for peer review. The choice of reviewers is crucial to the publication process, and the editors make their choice based on a variety of criteria, such as the reviewer's experience, reputation, recommendations, and knowledge of their qualifications.

The Editors assign the manuscript to 2 reviewers, 1 of whom is a member of the Editorial Board and 1 of whom is an external expert in the field. Reviewers (both members of the Editorial Board and external) should be known experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have published in the field of research (preferably during the last 5 years).

If there is no Editorial Board expert in the manuscript field, the paper is sent to 2 external reviewers. Editors will check for conflicts of interest before contacting reviewers and will not consider reviewers with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest before reviewing a submitted manuscript.

The Journal requires that members of the Editorial Board not be involved in editing their own scientific papers if they occasionally submit their manuscripts for publication. In such cases, the peer review process will be conducted by other members of the Editorial Board. Submitted manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers. The submitting Editor/Board member has no input into the decision-making process. Decisions are made by other members of the Editorial Board who do not have a conflict of interest with the author(s).

After a manuscript evaluation, the reviewer should:

  • recommend the manuscript for publication;
  • recommend the manuscript for publication after revision by the author(s) taking into account the reviewers' comments;
  • reject the manuscript to be published.

To facilitate the review process, the editors recommend that reviewers may use the standard review form.

The reviewer's evaluation of the manuscript is based on:

  • relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • the theoretical and applied value of the research conducted;
  • the correctness of the statistical methods used, their interpretation, and presentation;
  • the consistency of the author's conclusions with the stated research objective;
  • the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of the references used;
  • the scientific contribution of the author to the solution of the studied problem.

The Journal assesses the reviewers' recommendations and decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. If revision of the manuscript is required, the authors have to provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised.

After revision by the authors, the manuscript is reviewed again by the same reviewers, who, taking into account their comments, recommend or do not recommend the paper for publication and provide the reasons for their decision.

The final decision on acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief after review. The Editorial Board will endeavor to evaluate the arguments of each reviewer and the authors before making a final judgment and may consider other facts not known to either party. If the reviewers disagree or the authors feel they have misunderstood a particular point, the editors may ask them for additional guidance.

The editors take the reviewers' criticisms seriously and are particularly reluctant to ignore technical criticisms. If only one reviewer disagrees with the publication, we may question the other reviewers to determine if they are applying an unjustified critical standard.