All manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to a double-blind review.

The purpose of reviewing is to ensure a rigorous selection of manuscripts for publication and provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The reviewing focuses on the most objective assessment of the manuscript content, determination of its compliance with the Journal requirements and involves a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the material presented for consideration.

The reviewers are independent experts.

The reviewing procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors. The author can claim familiarization with the review (without reporting the personal data of the reviewer).

1. Each manuscript is assigned an individual code used to track the manuscripts forwarded for reviewing and ensure the anonymous review.
2. The reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the manuscript, its practical value and scientific significance, determine its compliance with the publication ethics principles, and provide recommendations for revising the manuscripts. The manuscript is also examined for compliance with technical requirements.
3. The reviewers are notified that the provided manuscripts are the authors’ intellectual property and are not subject to disclosure. The reviewers are prohibited from mentioning the content and cite the manuscripts before they are published.

At that, it is not considered a violation of ethics if the reviewer terminates some own research if it becomes ineffective in the reviewer’s opinion.

8. The reviewer’s statement of plagiarism or other forms of improper borrowing in the manuscript in question must be reasoned, accompanied by an appropriate reference.

If the reviewer has doubts regarding plagiarism, authorship, or data falsification, the reviewer is obliged to address the editorial board, asking for collective consideration of the manuscript in question.

9. The reviewer shall ensure timely provision of reviews following the ethical and professional requirements to support the constant frequency of the Journal publishing.

The relationship with the reviewer is terminated in case of unethical behavior towards authors or regular provision of low-quality reviews, or violation of terms for providing reviews.

10. The reviewer shall evaluate the possibility of reviewing the provided materials based on the correspondence of the reviewer’s qualifications to the author’s research direction and the absence of a conflict of interest within 5 (five) day upon receipt of the manuscript for consideration.

In case of a conflict of interest between the research results and the reviewer’s personal developments or in the presence of such professional or personal relations of the reviewer with the author that can impact the reviewer’s opinion, the reviewer shall return the manuscript to the editorial board indicating the conflict of interest.

An absence of a justified refusal to review is considered as the reviewer’s agreement to review the manuscript.

The reviewer shall prepare a review within 14 (fourteen) work days and make a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the manuscript. The review terms can be prolonged in certain cases in agreement with the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Journal to ensure the proper conditions for a complete and objective assessment of the manuscript.

Having completed the manuscript analysis, the reviewer fills in a standardized form according to the following criteria: relevance, novelty, originality, innovation, significance, structuredness, literary level, and design. In conclusion, the reviewer gives the recommendations:

– allowed for publishing;
– allowed for publishing, taking into account the comments of the editorial board;
– not allowed for publishing (to be returned to the author for revision).

If the reviewer requests certain correction to the text, the manuscript is returned to the author with a proposal to take the comments into account when revising the manuscript or to reasonably refute them. When submitting a revised manuscript to the Journal, the author shall send a file containing responses to all the reviewer’s comments and explaining all the changes made to the manuscript.

The revised manuscript is again submitted to the reviewer for decision making and preparation of a substantiated opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance for publication is the date when the editorial office receives a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the editorial board decision) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the manuscript.

The editorial board decides to publish or reject a manuscript upon receipt of the reviews and the author’s responses.