Peer review process

Peer review process

  1. The Editors accept theoretical and methodological articles concerning the journal's focus and scope. Manuscripts which do not correspond to main thematics or requirements of the journal can be declined at the stage of initial review directly by the Editor-in-Chief.
  2. The Editors support international high standards of the peer review process transparency, therefore practice the double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names. Previously all of their personal information removed from the article’s texts and files properties.
  3. The submitted articles are sent for reviewing to two independent experts. Reviewers meet with the article's abstract, whereupon consent or refuse to review this material. In the case of refuse, other reviewers are appointed.
  4. The reviewers meet with the material and estimate its scientific level filling "Review Form", where specify their remarks and comments. After filling the basic "Review Form" experts select one of the offered recommendations:
    • accept submission – the article is ready for publication and accepted without changes;
    • revisions required – accepted, if an author will take into account the indicated remarks;
    • resubmit for review – need a revision and repeated reviewing;
    • resubmit elsewhere – after the subjects the article responds to another edition;
    • decline submission – the article does not correspond to the requirements of the edition.
  5. On completion of reviewing process all corresponding information sends to the author. The author improves the article and sends an updated version.
  6. The reviewers re-examine improved manuscript and provide a recommendation on the possibility of its further publication.

Appeal procedure

  1. If the author does not agree with some reviewer comments, he may submit an appeal to the editor in the format "reviewer comments - author ‘s response." This document will be sent to the reviewer and together with the editors will made a decision on the manuscript.
  2. When reviewers choose mutually opposite resolution (accept/reject), the editors contact with them and consider together all comments to harmonize positions on further publication of this material.
  3. If a decision cannot be reached, the editors appoint an independent expert.