Peer-Review

Peer-Review General provisions

The Journal is the reviewed research edition.

The Journal has developed procedures for external/independent peer review.

Approved for consideration manuscripts of articles sent for review to assess their research content several reviewers of the corresponding profile.

Manuscripts of articles (further – articles), acted in edition, have some stages of reviewing.

1. Research reviewing of article, its conformity to Thematic Areas of the Journal, to requirements to registration carried out by the the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council of the research Journal (single blind reviewing).

2. The manuscript is sent for review to several of the members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council or the invited experts with research specialization is closest to the theme of the article (double-blind peer review). The Journal peer-review process ensures that reviewers are independent of the authors, i.e. not affiliated with the same institution.

The positive review of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council is not sufficient grounds for the publication of the article.

The average number of weeks between submission and publication is 15 and more.

The originals of all levels are stored at least 1 year in the editorial office of the Journal.

 

The Journal peer-review process 

1. The beginning of the review.  Manuscripts of articles registered by the authors on the site receive the status "Submitted". Submitted manuscripts are checked for its conformity with the Thematic Areas and requirements of the Journal.The beginning for the calculation of the period of review is the assignment of a registered article status "on Consideration" (on the website records the date of reception of the manuscript for consideration). The status confirms the compliance of the manuscript with the requirements of adopted edition. (See. read more: the General order of Article Processing in Journal)

2. The peer-review process. Approved for consideration manuscripts of articles sent for review to assess their research content several specialists of the corresponding profile (at the same time is assigned a status - "under Peer-Review"). The total period in accordance with the international practice and recommendations of international ethical committees to 1 month from the date of transfer of the manuscript for review. The Journal peer-review process ensures that reviewers are independent of the authors, i.e. not affiliated with the same institution.

3. A re-review. If you received the recommendations of the reviewers of the Journal decided "to recommend taking into account corrections of deficiencies noted" that the author sent recommendations and issues for correction. The manuscript corrected by the author are again sent for review. The author should motivate the changes.

4. The acceptance for publication. The decision about acceptance for publication is based on received positive recommendations from the reviewers of the Journal (at the same time are assigned the status "accepted for publication").

5. The refusal to publish. If you received the recommendations of the reviewers of the Journal decided "not to recommend for publication", the author receives a reasoned refusal to publish. Manuscripts not recommended for publication, repeatedly are not considered.

 

Purpose of Peer-review

Defining the purpose of the review - all editors information for decision-making. The editors make a decision based on the reviewers ' advice.

The review also provides guidance on the deficiencies and inconsistencies of the manuscript to the assessment criteria.

The review may contain recommendations to improve the quality of articles for publication, but the reviewers have no obligation to provide the authors with constructive, detailed justification of all inconsistencies.

If in the opinion of the reviewer the manuscript under review does not meet the criteria for publication, then the review shall contain only the main causes of failure.

 

The Editorial Board provides policy that specifies peer review process and

responsibilities of reviewers:   

 

The reviewer should be objective, reviewing the manuscript correctly, in a timely manner.

The reviewer should have no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other) with respect to the research, the authors and the research funders.

If necessary, the reviewer may decline from the manuscript evaluation for the reasons of conflict interests.

The reviewer should point out the relevant published works that are not yet quoted by the author.

The reviewer should to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author.

 

The Editorial Board provides policy that specifies 

 responsibilities of editors:

 

The editors should to act in a balanced and objective way while carrying out their expected duties. 

The editors have complete responsibility for the content of the Journal and the quality of the published articles, 

when errors are found, the editors should to promote publication of correction or retraction.

The editors have authority to reject/accept an article.

The editors should have no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other)  with respect to article they reject/accept. 

Articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.

The editor should to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the reviewer or author.

The editor should to preserve the anonymity of reviewers.


The main criteria of Peer-review assessment

- represents whether the article is of interest to scholars and readers of the Journal;

- the novelty of the content of the article, the author's contribution;

- as far as the content of the article corresponds to modern achievements in the relevant thematic areas;

- as far as the presentation of the article meets the modern requirements of the methodology relevant research.

- does the content of the article stated in the title;

- compliance with the structure of research articles (Full Articles);

- if the article has strong evidence for its conclusions;

- the scientific level of article, from the point of view of language, style, illustrative material, tables, charts, figures and formulas.

 

Review Statistics  (2017)

  1-2017 2-2017 3-2017 4-2017 5-2017 6-2017
Submitted: 32 34 29 28 27 46
Accepted: 16 12 15 15 15 16
Not Accepted: 16 22 14 13 12 30


Review Statistics  (2018)

  1-2018 2-2018 3-2018 4-2018 5-2018 6-2018
Submitted: 42 48 58 47  52  57
Accepted: 15 12 16 15  16  16
Not Accepted: 27 36 42 32  36  41

 

Review Statistics  (2019)

  1-2019 2-2019 3-2019 4-2019 5-2019 6-2019
Submitted: 37 43 46  23  12  
Accepted: 14 15 15       
Not Accepted: 23 28 31