Peer Review Process
All manuscripts received by the editorial office are checked by the executive editor regarding the purpose, subject, and policy of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's subject matter and editorial policies or journal editorial standards are rejected for review. The editor's introduction and the block with information about corrections are not subject to review.
Manuscripts of articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for structure and design are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
Manuscripts of articles in which, after checking for plagiarism in the Unicheck, a significant percentage of textual borrowings are found, are returned to the authors for revision. If signs of plagiarism are detected, the article will be returned to the author without the right to resubmit this article.
After desk-review, the author's manuscript is submitted for peer-review (expert evaluation, external).
The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to pass a paper for review or reject it without further evaluation. The author is normally informed within 15 business days of assignment to the associate editor.
Peer-review (external reviewers)
All articles submitted for publication are subject to a double-blind review by external reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the specific article.
Members of the editorial board recommend as reviewers persons who are experts in the scientific field of a specific article and have publications on the topic of the article. Members of the editorial board can also be reviewers.
Reviewers must adhere to international best peer review practices, including the Guidelines for Reviewers from the European Association of Science Editors, the Web of Science Academy.
Reviewers are required to notify the editor of all possible conflicts of interest as soon as possible. They must also adhere to the principle of confidentiality when working with the manuscript of the article, in particular not to use and reproduce it in whole or in part anywhere, and not to disclose information about the editorial request for review.
During the preparation of the review, the reviewer must answer "yes", or "no, needs minor revision" or "no, needs significant revision" to the following questions (the question is specified in the template for the reviewer):
1. Does the title of the article correspond to its content and purpose?
2. Does the abstract reflect the main content of the article and correspond to the IMRAD structure?
3. Are the key ideas of the article original, scientifically significant and interesting to the readership?
4. Are the main results of the article scientifically based and valid?
5. Does the article and its key parts comply with the structure of IMRAD and the technical requirements of -the journal?
6. Are the tables, figures justified, appropriate and meet the requirements of the magazine?
7. Is the research methodology appropriate and properly substantiated?
8. Is the language of the article scientific, grammatically correct and understandable to the readership?
9. In the "Discussions" section, is knowledge of the relevant issues of the literature article demonstrated?
10. Are the conclusions clear and reasoned?
If the reviewers chose the answers “no, needs minor revision” or “no, needs significant revision” for any item, they should write reasoned comments and explain to the authors how to improve the article.
The editors have the right not to notify the author of those comments that contain a subjective assessment of the provisions of the manuscript, or insults, or do not meet the established requirements and criteria specified above.
Editors mediate all discussions between authors and reviewers during review of an article prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, the editors may invite additional reviewers.
The responsible editor has the right to return the review for revision if the reviewer did not comply with the requirements established by the Recommendations for reviewers (call for Recommendations), the review contains ambiguous remarks. In case of significant remarks to the reviewer, the editor has the right to exclude the reviewer from the list of persons to whom the publication addresses.
Reviewers do not carry out structural or stylistic editing of the manuscript, but, if necessary, report editorial problems of the authors and editors of the journal in the appropriate block of the review.
Reviewers' decisions can be as follows:
- to accept;
- accept after minor revisions;
- accept after substantial revisions;
- reject with a proposal for resubmission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be asked to resubmit the article after substantial revision of the content, if, according to the reviewers, the article requires additional experiments, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions);
- reject (the article is rejected without the right to resubmit the same article if it has serious flaws and/or does not contain original scientific results).
If the article can be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors' recommendations, if any.
The author resubmits a revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers' comments. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article.
The editor-in-chief directly evaluates the quality of changes or submits the article to reviewers for re-evaluation. In the case of a second round of review, the reviewer may be asked to evaluate a revised version of the manuscript in light of the reviewer's recommendations made during the first round of review.
Reviewers should clearly and reasonedly express their point of view, be polite and constructive in their recommendations.
The author must respond to all comments of the reviewer in accordance with the points of the review.
The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of manuscript review.
The editors take into account the comments of the reviewers, but the final decision on the publication of the article is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal.
Handling papers from editorial board members
Editorial members can submit their works with the prospect of their publication in the journal. This is a potential conflict of interest, especially in cases where the manuscript is submitted by the decision-maker.
During the review, such members of the editorial board will not participate in the selection of reviewers and the decision-making process for the manuscript. The review and adoption process will be controlled by a senior editor, independent of other editors. In some cases, the review process will be conducted by external independent experts to minimize possible bias in the evaluation of manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board.
To ensure transparent and fair handling of these manuscripts, the following principles will be applied to them:
(1) The manuscripts of the members of the editorial board will be subject to double blind review, and members of the editorial board will not have access to information regarding their works, except for those available to all authors.
(2) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will be reviewed by a minimum of two external peer reviewers.
(3) Member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts are treated as all submissions to the journal and may be subject to the full range of editorial decisions: reject without peer review, multiple revisions, reject after revision and/or accept.
(4) If accepted, member(s) of the editorial board manuscripts will carry a note to the reader showing how transparent the reviewing process had been.