Articles are reviewed by two independent experts appointed by the editorial board, after which a copy of the article manuscript with reviewers' comments is sent to the author. Corrected by the authors and reprinted version of the article, agreed with reviewers, is considered final and should be signed by reviewers and authors "To print", after that substitutions of text, figures or tables become inadmissible.

When approving the number, the editorial board is guided by the date of receipt of the last version.

If the reviewers reject the article, the editorial board sends a written notification to the author.

When submitting an article authors can propose independent reviewers for their work, as well as ask to exclude up to two scientists or laboratories from the list of reviewers. The editorial board is sympathetic to such wishes, but reserves the right to involve those reviewers who will conduct a more in-depth analysis of the work.

The Journal guarantees confidentiality of all stages of submission, reviewing and prepress and requires authors not to disseminate correspondence with the journal to third parties, not to post reviews, comments of editors on any websites without the consent of the publisher, regardless of whether the work has been published or not.

 

Reviewing process

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board are subject to compulsory review. The work of the journal is built on the principles of independent and objective reviewing (double-blind).

When submitting an article authors can propose independent reviewers for their work, as well as ask to exclude up to two scientists or laboratories from the list of reviewers. The editorial board is sympathetic to such wishes, but reserves the right to involve those reviewers who will conduct a more in-depth analysis of the work.

After registration, manuscripts are evaluated for their compliance with the requirements and the journal's profile, then they are sent for scientific review to at least 2 external experts who work in the corresponding scientific fields.

Based on the conclusions of the reviewers, the editor-in-chief / editorial board decides:

  • accept the manuscript for publication with or without minor corrections;
  • send the manuscript to the authors to correct the indicated deficiencies with a subsequent decision on publication in the journal;
  • refuse to publish the article, usually on the grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptualization, or significant technical and/or interpretation problems of the research results.

The results of the review are based on the suggested recommendations of the reviewers. The reviewer's opinion is not final. The decision of the editor-in-chief / editorial board to publish the article is final.

In the case of a positive result of reviewing, the manuscript is sent to the editorial board for further processing and publication.

If it is necessary to revise the manuscript, the author is sent a review together with all the reviewer's comments and suggestions. The revised version of the manuscript is sent for a second review.

In the case of a negative result of reviewing, a review with a motivated refusal is sent to the author. The manuscript is not returned to the author.

The editor and editorial board are guided in their work by the principles of confidentiality. The same applies to authors and reviewers. All correspondence with the journal, reviewers' reports, and other materials should not be posted on any site or published without the prior consent of the editor or editorial board, regardless of whether or not the manuscript will be published.

Reviewers selection

The selection of reviewers is critical to the reviewing process, so many factors are taken into account when selecting reviewers: their level of training, reputation, positive recommendations and previous experience with them. The Journal avoids collaborating with reviewers who are biased, slow, or sloppy in their reviewing. Reviewers are invited to collaborate with the journal and only if their consent is obtained do reviewers have full access to the manuscript for reviewing.

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat the review process as strictly confidential and observe the following guidelines:

  • Reviewed manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone who is not directly involved in the review process.
  • If it is necessary to obtain any advice from their colleagues or independent experts, the latter must be agreed upon and accepted by the editors.
  • Reviewers should not reveal their identity to authors or other colleagues during the review process, as this may affect the objectivity of the review. If it is necessary to disclose their identity, reviewers must obtain the consent of the editor.
  • The journal categorically rejects attempts by authors to identify reviewers' identities and even more so to influence them, and advises reviewers to avoid any speculation about this.

Preparing the results of the review

The main purpose of the reviewer's report is to provide the editorial board with the information necessary for the editor to make a final decision on whether the article can be published or, in the case of necessary revision of the manuscript, to provide the author with clear recommendations for its correction. The reviewer should provide both confidential comments to the editor and those that can be directly related to the authors.

When preparing comments for authors, reviewers should maintain a positive and unbiased, but critical, attitude toward the evaluation of manuscripts. Criticism should remain impartial. Incorrect and insulting remarks are not allowed. As far as possible, a negative report should explain to the authors the shortcomings of their manuscript so that they can understand the reasons for deciding to revise or not to publish the manuscript.

Information about the results of the review on the publication of the article (acceptance for publication, review or rejection of the manuscript) is advisory in nature, since the final decision belongs to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewing timing

The journal adheres to the principles of the most efficient organization of the publication process, so the Editorial Board requests that reviewers report significant delays in the review process promptly and in a timely manner, allowing alternative reviewers to be found if necessary.

Conflict of interest in the review process

In order to ensure an unbiased approach in the review process, the Journal's editorial board tries to avoid collaborating with reviewers who have recently or continuously worked with authors, have commented on draft manuscripts that are in direct competition, have conflicts with authors, or have shared financial interests.

However, since editors cannot know about all possible biases, the editorial board asks reviewers to pay attention to anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and to reject those reviewers who feel unable to be objective. The Journal does not consider it necessary to exclude reviewers who have reviewed articles for other journals. The fact that two journals independently engaged one reviewer qualified to review does not detract from the validity of his or her thought in conducting the review.