Peer-review process


All manuscripts undergo an independent peer-review by at least two leading specialists in the field. Based on the results of the peer-review, the Editorial Board makes a decision to either publish the article or return it to the author for revision taking into account the recommendations provided by the reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers for each article in consultation with section editors. The Editorial Board ensures that authors have no information about identities of the reviewers, as well as that reviewers do not have access to any information that would reveal the identity of the author(s). Double-blind peer review ensures the objectivity and impartiality of the reviews performed, on the one hand, and protects the anonymity of the reviewers, on the other.

The article undergoes peer-review upon completion of the plagiarism check. The duration of the peer-review process can range from one to four weeks, starting from the moment the article is received until the positive results of the review are obtained.

Reviewer recommendations can take one of the following forms: (1) reject the article; (2) return the article for revision; (3) recommend the article for publication upon minor improvements by the authors; (4) recommend the article for publication.
1. Reject the article: The reviewers believe that the article does not align with the scope of the Journal, fails to comply with the requirements for scientific work, or violates the standards of the Journal’s publishing ethics.

2. Return the article for revision: The reviewers believe that the authors should make significant corrections to ensure the highest possible quality of scientific work.

3. Recommend the article for publication after minor improvements by the authors: The reviewers believe that the scientific quality of the article meets the requirements set by the Journal and that it can be sent into production. However, there are minor (technical) remarks that the authors should address before the article is sent for literary editing and translation.

4. Recommend the article for publication: The reviewers believe that the scientific quality of the article meets the requirements set by the Journal, and that it can be sent into production without reservations.

If the reviewer recommendations fall into either the form (2) or (3), the editors will provide authors with the details of the reviewers’ comments and set a deadline for submitting a revised version of the article. Authors are required to highlight any changes to the original text in a different color or provide them using the editing mode of the word processing software. If authors disagree with the reviewer’s comment(s), they should provide a justification for their position in a separate file (with references to the specific comment they dispute) and attach this file when submitting a new version of the article.

Upon receiving the revised article, the editors send it to the same reviewers to confirm whether the changes made are sufficient to recommend the article for publication.

If the reviewer’s recommendations take the form (3), the editors can make such a decision independently.

The final decision regarding the publication of the article is communicated to authors in a separate letter.