Since 1997

Procedure of article review

  1. All scientific articles received by the editorial board and relevant to the subject of the journal are subject to a mandatory review aimed at their expert evaluation.
  2. The correspondence of the article to the profile of the journal and the design requirements is determined. The material is sent for review to a specialist who has the scientific specialization closest to the theme of the article, and has publications on the subject of the article under review over the past 3 years. In case of refusal in sending the submitted article for reviewing, the editorial board sends a reasoned reply to the author.
  3. The review period in each individual case is determined with regard to the creation of conditions for the most prompt publication of the article (but not more than 20 days).
  4. The review addresses the following issues:
    • whether or not the content of the article is related to the topic stated in the title;
    • to what extent the article is related to the modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought;
    • whether or not the article can be understood  by the audience for which it is targeted from the point of view of language, style, material arrangement, as well as visuals including tables, diagrams, figures, and formulas;
    • whether or not the publication of the article is expedient, given the previously published literature on this issue;
    • what exactly the positive aspects and the shortcomings of the article are, as well as what corrections and additions should be made by the author;
    • whether or not it is recommended, given the correction of the drawbacks noted by the reviewer, to publish the article in the journal.
  5. Reviewing is done confidentially. The author of the peer-reviewed article is given the opportunity to read the text of the review.
  6. The author has the opportunity to improve the content of the article twice after review. The improved (revised) article is re-sent for review.
  7. The article not recommended by the reviewer for publication may be sent for an additional expert evaluation to another specialist. The final decision is made by the editorial board on the review results and is communicated to the author.
  8. After making a positive decision on the acceptance of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about this and indicates the expected publication date.
  9. The originals of reviews are preserved in the journal’s editorial office for three years.