Accepted manuscripts are sent for review to assess their scientific content to several specialists of the relevant profile.

The editorial board of the journal has adopted international standards of double-blind peer review: for the objectivity of the recommendations, the identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors or other reviewers (only if the reviewers themselves are asked to specify the name). International ethical committees recommend that reviewers remain anonymous during and after the review.

Manuscripts undergo several stages of reviewing.

  1. Examination of the scientific level of the article is carried out by the editorial board and the responsible editor in accordance with the scientific specialization of the submitted article (open reviewing).
  2. Scientific reviewing of the article, its compliance with the journal subject, design requirements, evaluation of the completeness of the review are carried out by the editorial board of the electronic journal, the chief editor.
  3. The manuscript of the article is sent for review to one (several) of the members of the editorial board or invited specialists who have scientific specialization closest to the subject of the article (double-blind review).

The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article.

Original reviews of all levels are stored for at least 1 year in the editorial office of the scientific journal.

Review process terms

  1. The beginning of the review process. The beginning for the calculation of the reviewing period is the assignment of the status of the registered article «Accepted for consideration». The status confirms the compliance of the manuscript with the requirements adopted by the editors.
  2. The review process. Accepted manuscripts are sent for reviewing to assess their scientific content to several specialists of the relevant profile. The total term in accordance with international practice and recommendations of international ethical committees is 1 month from the date of submission of the manuscript for reviewing.
  3. Re-reviewing. If in the received recommendations of the reviewers of the journal it is decided to «recommend taking into account the correction of the noted shortcomings», then the author is sent recommendations and questions for correction. The manuscript of the article, corrected by the author, is re-sent for reviewing. The author needs to explain the changes.
  4. Acceptance for publication. The decision to accept for publication is based on the generally positive recommendations of the reviewers of the journal (at the same time, the status «accepted for publication» is assigned).
  5. Refusal to publish. If in the received recommendations of the reviewers of the journal the decision «not to recommend for publication» is made, the author of the manuscript is sent a reasoned refusal to publish. Manuscripts that are not recommended for publication are not considered again.


Goals of reviewing

The main purpose of the reviewing is to provide the editors with information for decision-making.  The editors make decisions based on the reviewers' assessment.

The review also contains notes on the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the manuscript evaluation criteria. The review may contain recommendations to the authors to improve the quality of the article for publication, but the reviewers are not required to provide the authors with a detailed constructive justification of all inconsistencies. If in the opinion of the reviewer the considered manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication, then only the main reasons for refusal are indicated in the review.

Main evaluation criteria

  • whether the article is of interest to scholars and readers of the journal;
  • the novelty of the content of the article, the author's contribution;
  • to what extent the content of the article corresponds to modern achievements in the relevant scientific field;
  • to what extent the presentation of the article meets the modern requirements of the methodology of the relevant branch of science.
  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • compliance with the structure of the research article (Full Articles);
  • whether the article has convincing evidence confirming the author's conclusions;
  • the scientific level of the article, in terms of language, style, visibility of the material, tables, charts, drawings and formulas.
You are here:   ГлавнаяINFORMATION FOR AUTHORSReview process