The journal only publishes the manuscripts recommended by the reviewers.
The reviewer 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.
To be published, a manuscript has to be recommended by two independent reviewers appointed by the editor-in-chief. 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 reviewers are aware that the copyright for the manuscripts belongs solely to their authors and that the articles under review cannot be shared or copied.
Reviewing is strictly confidential. A breach of confidentiality is unacceptable unless the reviewer reports unreliability or counterfeiting of the material.
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:
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 COPE protocole.
The original reviews are kept in the editorial office for at least 5 years to be submitted to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon request.
We will necessarily notify you of acceptance, rejection, or the need for revisions within 3 months of receipt of the manuscript. If the reviewer claims that the article has to undergo a considerable revision, it will be returned to the same reviewer for the second check-up after it has been improved by the author.
Should the author be unable or unwilling to take into account the reviewer's recommendations, the editorial office reserves the right to reject the article.
A manuscript can be rejected after two negative reviews or one negative review of its revised variant. In this case, the author receives a substantiated written refusal and a copy of the reviews. The reviewer's name may be reported to the author only if the reviewer gives consent to it.
After the peer review stage, the manuscript receives a final approval from the editor-in-chief (in his absence – deputy editor-in-chief). In exceptional circumstances, the decision can be made at the meeting of the editorial board..