Reviewing Process

To be accepted for publication by the editorial board, the submitted materials should be topical and not published earlier.

Within five days, the author is informed about the acceptance of his / her research article and filing it into the review list. The articles are reviewed by the members of the editorial board and by invited reviewers who are renowned scientists and highly qualified specialists, well-versed in the respective area of science (mostly doctors of science and professors). The admitted research articles are subject to double-blind peer review on-line.

The written review is presented both as a text and a table containing the reviewer’s opinion about:

1. the scientific problem addressed by the author, its novelty and originality;
2. the topicality of the problem;
3. the congruence of methodology and goals and tasks of the research;
4. the theoretical and practical importance of the research paper;
5. the validity of argumentation;
6. the author’s personal contribution to analyzing the problem under discussion;
7. the use of language, the logic, the cohesion and coherence in the conveyance of the material, as well as the validity and reliability of summary and conclusions.

The reviewer gives expert opinion concerning the decision to publish or to reject the article.

In case of disagreement with the recommendation of reviewers to refuse publication, the author has the right to appeal. An independent expert who is not a member of the editorial board and has not previously reviewed this article is appointed to consider the appeal at a meeting of the editorial board.On the basis of the expert opinion made in the "double blind peer review" mode, the editorial board decides on the possibility of publishing the article. In case the author violated ethical standards during the preparation of the article, the appeal procedure is not conducted.

Within further 30 working days the author is sent the answer with a motivated decision: (1) the article may be recommended for publication in its present form, (2) the article may be recommended for publication after improvement, (3) the article is not recommended for publication. The editorial board does not show the author(s) the review but may, if necessary, inform them about the commentaries made by the reviewer(s) and about the advice on how to improve the article.

On all stages of reviewing, members of the editorial board, reviewers and authors should keep to Publications Ethics.