The journal only publishes the manuscripts recommended by the reviewers.
On 6 June 2023, we updated our requirements for manuscripts and their reviewing, namely:
1. We shall only accept manuscripts in those fields of study which have been in the tag cloud of Scopus publications over the last three years.
2. A manuscript must be typed in Times New Roman, size 10, single interval, with margins of 2 cm. A manuscript must contain at least 60,000 characters with spaces (excluding references), including an abstract and at least 10 graphic objects (tables, graphs, diagrams).
3. The editorial board shall reject weak, carelessly written or otherwise unsuitable manuscripts before sending them for consideration and review; increase the number of reviewers to two external and one internal; use a cascading review system; and consider a possibility of public disclosure of information (publish comments made by reviewers together with the manuscript).
4. Priority shall be given to manuscripts of highly-cited authors that contain fundamentally new information.
The reviewers is appointed by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor.
The double blind peer review can be conducted by the members of the editorial board or by acknowledged academic experts (doctors, professors) in the area of research who have recent publications on the related topic.
The reviewer defines the type and content of the article; evaluates whether the manuscript is relevant for the scientific community, possesses scientific novelty and practical significance, corresponds to the profile of the Journal; checks the text for consistency and reliability of research results; decides if the title corresponds to the content; and assesses the quality of the abstract, illustrative material, and the list of references.
Based on the results, the reviewer produces a reasoned opinion:
The reviewers are notified about the manuscripts being the authors' private owner rights and not being subject to public disclosure. The reviewers are not allowed to copy the articles for their private needs. Reviewing is performed confidentially. Violation of confidentiality is impossible unless the reviewer declares unreliability or counterfeiting of the article's materials.
Reviewer undertakes to conduct peer review of the manuscript objectively. All the conclusions of the reviewer should be strictly provided with links to authoritative sources. Personal criticism of author by the reviewer is unacceptable. In such cases, the Editors follow the COPEprotocole.
The term for the article consideration should not exceed three months from the date of starting the reviewing process.
If the reviewer points out, that improvement is necessary the article is sent to the author for follow-on revision. In this case the return date of the modified article is considered the date of the article submission.
If, on the recommendation of the reviewer, the article underwent a considerable revision by the author, it is again sent to the reviewer who gave the critical remarks. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the articles in case of the author's inability or unwillingness to take into account the editor's recommendations.
In case of two negative manuscript reviews from different experts or one negative review on the article's modified variant it is rejected without considering by other members of the editorial board.
After reviewing the possibility of publication is decided upon by the editor-in-chief or, in case of necessity, by the editorial board altogether.
The author of the rejected article is sent a motivated refusal by the official responsible for issuing. The reviewer's name may be reported to the author provided that the former gives consent to it.
Reviews' originals are kept by the editorial board during five years since the publication.
