1. All manuscripts submitted through the official website of the journal are subject to double-blind peer review.
2. A review is a written text containing an evaluation of the scientific material. A review constitutes an independent written scientific work.
3. Reviews are carried out by two independent specialists in the subject area to which the manuscript belongs.
4. A review should indicate the relevance of the work, provide an assessment of the study, and highlight its strengths and weaknesses requiring correction.
5. Manuscripts submitted for review must comply with all formal requirements of the journal and contain at least 70% original text.
6. Peer review assists the editorial board in making a decision on the publication of the scientific material and may also help the author improve their work.
7. Reviews are sent to reviewers via the electronic system of the journal’s official website.
8. The review period is up to 1 month.
9. The decision on the selection of reviewers is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Editor.
10. The corresponding author is provided with reviews.
11. Reviews of manuscripts are provided to the author without disclosing personal data (name, position, workplace) of the reviewer.
12. If the review contains a conclusion regarding the need for revision, the article is returned to the corresponding author for improvement.
13. Reviewer recommendations are forwarded to the corresponding author for revision and correction of the manuscript, or for a reasoned response.
14. If necessary, the revised (corrected) manuscript is resubmitted for review and considered under the general procedure.
15. A manuscript that is reasonably not recommended for publication by a reviewer is not accepted for reconsideration.
16. In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s opinion, the author(s) of the manuscript have the right to appeal to the editorial board with a reasoned request to have the manuscript reviewed by another reviewer. In this case, the editorial board considers the author’s arguments and may either send the manuscript for another review or provide the author with a substantiated refusal.
17. A positive review (or reviews) is not a sufficient basis for publication. The final decision regarding publication is made by the journal’s editorial board.
18. Upon receiving two positive reviews and the conclusion of the responsible editor, the manuscript is recommended for publication in the journal according to the established order.
19. Manuscripts approved by the editorial board are transferred to the Executive Secretary for issue preparation.
20. If one reviewer provides a positive conclusion and the other a negative one, the manuscript is sent by the scientific editor to a third reviewer or to a member of the editorial board who is a specialist in the subject area. If the third reviewer or editorial board member provides a positive review, the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the scientific editor of the journal.
21. In the case of two negative reviews, the manuscript is rejected for publication in the journal.
22. Manuscripts rejected as a result of peer review are not used by the journal in any way thereafter. The editorial office notifies the corresponding author of the rejection and provides the negative reviews.
23. Reviews of manuscripts are stored in electronic format on the journal’s electronic platform for three years.