Peer review policy

The editorial office of the journal carries out internal peer review of articles submitted for publication and provides external peer review in accordance with the double-blind peer-rewiew procedure, based on the principle of objectivity and in accordance with international standards of publishing ethics – COPE Code of Conduct (Peer review processes).

The order of reviewing manuscripts in the journal:

▌1▐  The review (expert evaluation) of manuscripts is carried out in order to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the journal and to select the most valuable and relevant scientific papers and high-level reviewers.

▌2▐  In the journal the principle of Double-blind review (double-blind (anonymous) review) has been applied to ensure confidentiality:
- the reviewer does not disclose personal information of the author(s);
- the author(s) do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.

▌3▐  Scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial office are subject to initial control by the editorial office regarding compliance with the journal's profile, completeness and compliance with their design in accordance with the requirements for manuscripts set out on the website.

▌4▐  The primary expert review of a scientific article is done by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief.

▌5▐  After the primary expert review, the editorial office check for plagiarism. Manuscripts are checked using StrikePlagiarism.com software.

▌6▐  The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines for a published article the reviewer. Reviewers should be known specialists in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research. Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an explicit conflict of interest.

▌7▐  When reviewing scientific manuscript, reviewers should evaluate:
- relevance of the scientific problem raised in the research;
- methodological level of the research;
- scientific, theoretical and applied (if any) value of the performed research;
- correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
- correlation of conclusions of the author with available scientific concepts;
- adherence by the authors of the requirements of scientific ethics, correctness of references.

▌8▐  After an expert evaluation of a scientific manuscript, the reviewer:
- can recommend a manuscript for publication;
- can recommend a manuscript for publication after its after its finalization, taking into account the expressed comments and wishes;
- recommend a manuscript for additional review by another specialist;
- do not recommend a manuscript for publication.
If the reviewer recommends a manuscript for publication after its revision or does not recommend a manuscript for publication, the reason for such a decision should be indicated in the review.

▌9▐  Scientific manuscripts may be sent for additional review in cases:
-  insufficient qualification stated by the expert in the issues that are considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of initial expert judgment;
- an acute discussion of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.

▌10▐  The reviewer sends the completed and digitally signed review to the editorial office by e-mail. The editors inform the author(s) of the scientific manuscript of the results of the review.