Peer-Review Policies

All submitted manuscripts of scientific articles that correspond to the subject of the journal undergo a double-blind review procedure. Exceptions are only materials for the “Reviews”, “Chronicle” and “Ad Memoriam” sections. The editorial board evaluates materials for these sections for compliance with the journal’s profile, originality, and, if necessary, recommendations can be sent to the author for supplementing or correcting the text.

The article is sent for review to two reviewers. The review procedure is anonymous from both the author and reviewers. One of the reviewers is a member of the Editorial Board or the International Editorial Board, the second is a specialist unrelated to the journal. The review period is up to three months. In the case of two unambiguously positive reviews, materials are recommended for printing. When receiving two unambiguously negative reviews, the article is not recommended for publication. And returned to the author.

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication
with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows
that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative
reviewers can be contacted.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be
shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees
should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any
statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be
accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any
substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published
data of which they have personal knowledge.

The review form is presented on the website. In the case of writing a free-form review, it is necessary to mention the majority of the items presented in the official form and to have a clear conclusion about recommending or rejecting the article.

The author has the right to get acquainted with the reviews of his work, as well as give the answer to the reviewer in case of disagreement.

Download: Review-form

If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.