All articles sent to the Journal, providing they correspond to the journals’ profile and are prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements (see the requirements for authors), are submitted for review. The review process is designed to determine the research’s novelty, contribute to the article’s quality and ensure a strict selection of the best articles to be published in the journal.

External reviewers are involved in the review process – specialists from the relevant scientific fields who have significant experience and scientific authority, as well as members of the editorial board.Reviews sent by authors themselves are not considered by the editors.

The review process is confidential (double-blind review). Review is carried out by no less than two specialists in the relevant field who are to answer a series of questions that fully characterize the article. Author and reviewer are anonymous to each other. The duty of the reviewers is to objectively determine the advantages and disadvantages of the article, its scientific level, to treat the new scientific knowledge presented in it with care, to make efforts so that the author’s reputation and career are not damaged.

External independent reviewers (not from the publishing institution) are involved in the double-blind review of articles submitted for possible publication by the editor-in-chief of the journal or members of the editorial board.

Reviewers are responsible for identifying plagiarism and unjustified use of AI in articles.

In the process of scientific evaluation of an article, reviewers have no right to involve AI.

 Review procedure

The review process lasts at least 30 days.

Reviewers evaluate the article critically and objectively, following the requirements of COPE.

In the process of scientific evaluation of the article, reviewers must answer a number of questions (according to the list) that comprehensively characterize the level of the article.

Reviewers send their reviews to the magazine’s e-mail within the set time in two versions – with the reviewer’s signature (in PDF format) and without specifying their last name (in Word format).The latter (without signature) is sent to the author of the article.

All signed reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years from the date of their receipt.

As a result of the review, the article may be accepted, returned for revision with relevant recommendations or – in the case of two negative reviews – rejected by the Editorial Board. In any case, email message on the review outcome and review texts are sent to the author.

In case of the opposite positions of the reviewers, a third reviewer is invited.

If the article needs to be revised, a new version, revised by the author, is subject to additional review. The author should highlight all the changes (including tables and figures) in order to contribute to a faster conclusion. The author has two attempts to improve the article: if the second attempt fails, the article is rejected definitively.

The reasons for negative review include the lack of novelty, insufficient independence of the study, lack of evidence, the inability to formulate conclusions or outline the prospects, poor handling of materials, incorrect use of terminology and methodological apparatus and other shortcomings.

Upon positive feedback and after proper revision, each article is considered at a meeting of the editorial board, where it is finally approved in the issue by open vote.After review by the editorial board, in addition to a positive one, a collegial decision can be made to “send for revision with re-submission to the editorial board for consideration” or “reject” (if after two revisions the article still does not meet the profile of the journal, has an insufficient level of novelty, unclear conclusions, etc.). In case of final rejection of the article, the editorial board does not hold negotiations and discussions with the author.