Reviewers

PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING THE ARTICLES

1. All articles accepted by the editorial board for consideration after a formal examination are subject to review. Inconsistency of the subject line of the article with the profile of the journal, gross mistakes or inconsistency of the article formatting with  the authors guidelines may lead to the refusal for publishing the article at this stage.

2. Do not accept articles for publication, which are very similar to previously rejected.

3. Submitting the article means that the author (with co-authors) agrees with the requirements specified in the information for authors presented on the journal page: Articles published in the journal should contain new original materials and information. Authors of publications in the journal do not receive fees, and also agree with the publication of their articles in the printed version, as well as in the Internet version of the journal. Responsibility for the use of photographs and drawings in the submitted articles is on their authors.

4. The Editorial Board transmits each article to two reviewers, internal and external. The external reviewer estimate the article on the principles of double-blind review. The reviewer should be a recognized expert in the field from among academic staff – PhD, associate professors or professors. Among the possible reviewers should be excluded persons who are in close relationship with the author of the article.

5. Reviewers review the articles within 90 days and prepare a review of the established form with the conclusion about the expediency of publishing the article.

6. The reviewer, exclusively with the help of the editorial staff, may apply to the author for the provision of additional data used in writing the article, including the expansion of the list of sources used for the last 3-4 years that have a doi-identifier.

7. The review assesses the relevance of the subject matter of the article, the novelty, the importance of scientific development, the argumentation of the material presented. The remarks are stated concretely and reasonably.

8. The Editorial Board introduces the author to the conclusions of the reviewers and decides on the publication of the article. In the case with diametrically opposed evaluations of reviewers, the final decision is made by the editorial board.

9. In the presence of the comments of the reviewer, the author revises the article (additionally responds to all the comments of the reviewer) and within 10-15 days after receiving the review submits to the editor a revised version of the article.

10. The author of the article receives the text of the review without information about the reviewers, and the reviewers, in turn, before the publication of the article do not have information about the authors of the article.

11. The editorial board decides on the issue of the journal, in which the article will be published. This decision is made after the final correction of the article.