I. Scientific papers submitted to the editorial office are subject to review.
The following types of paper reviews are accepted in the journal:
1) chief editor peer review or his/her conclusions;
2) open peer review by an official reviewer — external expert in relevant scientific area;
3) single-blind review by one of the editorial board members — the reviewer knows about the author, but the author does not know about the reviewer;
4) double-blind review — both do not know about each other.
The scientists that perform dedicated studies are invited to conduct qualitative independent review of papers submitted for publication.
II. Decision on review type should be made by the chief editor.
ІІІ. The review should unambiguously characterize theoretical or applied significance of the research and correlate the author's findings with existing scientific concepts. The reviewer’s evaluation of the author’s personal contribution to the solution of the problem in question should be a necessary component of the review. The review should point out the style, logic and comprehensibility of the scientific matter presented in the paper and make a conclusion on the reliability and validity of the author’s conclusions.
The review should include the following components:
- Paper title.
- Compliance of the paper subject with the journal.
- Scientific novelty.
- Adherence to accepted structure and contents of scientific papers.
- Completeness and adequacy of subject presentation in the abstract.
- Quality of paper design.
- Comments of the reviewer.
- Conclusion of the reviewer.
- Information about the reviewer, signature and date.
ІV. After receiving reviews, the editorial board make the final decision to publish or refuse to publish the paper.
Based on the decision made, a letter informing about the decision on paper publication is sent to the author (authors) by e-mail or by regular mail. In case of refuse to publish the paper, the reviewers remain anonymous.
- The editorial board has the right to submit papers for additional external anonymous review. The chief editor sends a letter asking for a review to the reviewer. The letter is accompanied by the paper and the recommended review form.
- Positive reviews are not an adequate reason for paper publication. The editorial board makes the final decision on publication.
VII. Original reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal.
VIIІ. If there are substantial critical comments from the reviewer but the general recommendation is positive, the editorial board may refer the paper to polemical ones and publish it as a scientific discussion.