You are here: Home REVIEW POLICY

REVIEW POLICY

All scientific articles received by the editors are subject to a mandatory double-blind review. The reviewer has no information about the names and orders of the authors and, conversely, authors do not know who has reviewed their submitted manuscript. Interaction between authors and reviewers is not allowed and takes place only through the Editorial Office.

  1. Before a manuscript is submitted for review, an initial review will take place, the main purpose of which is to confirm that the topic of the article is consistent with the journal, the requirements and the correctness of the originality study.
  2. The peer review is conducted by the Editorial Board and the reviewers, who are generally recognised experts in the field relevant to the article's topic. The selection and appointment of a reviewer is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The decision is made with knowledge of the reviewer's employment. The average review period is 1 month from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
  3. If there is a conflict of interest in terms of publication ethics, the reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Office immediately and will be excluded from reviewing the manuscript.
  4. After reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer shall make recommendations on the article in the prescribed form. Options for decision:
    • the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
    • the article is recommended for publication without additional review after the deficiencies identified by the reviewer have been remedied;
    • the article needs improvement and requires another round of revision;
    • the article cannot be published in the journal even after the revision.

    In the case of a negative review, the article will be permanently excluded from publication in the journal.

  1. The Journal Editorial Office sends the text of the review to the author. If there are recommendations to improve the manuscript, the Editorial Office offers to take them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript or to send a reasoned response to the reviewer within 1 month of receiving the review. The author has the right to refuse the revision, of which he/she must inform the Editorial Office in writing (the article will then no longer be considered). The author may resubmit the completed manuscript to the journal.
  2. The Editorial Office will conduct a maximum of three rounds of review for each manuscript. If the reviewers' comments are upheld after the third round of review, the article will be withdrawn from consideration.
  3. If irreconcilable contradictions exist between the author and the reviewers about the manuscript, the Editorial Office, in consultation with the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief, may send the manuscript for further review. In conflicting situations, the decision to publish the manuscript shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief at the meeting of the Editorial Board.
  4. The final decision to accept or reject the article shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the opinion of the Editorial Office, the Editorial Board and the reviewers appointed to review the manuscript.
  5. The original reviews shall be kept in the Editorial Office of the journal.
  6. Not accepted for publication are:

(a) articles that are not properly formatted and whose authors refuse technical revision of the articles;

(b) articles whose authors do not respond to reviewers' constructive comments;

(c) articles that do not contain new information or are not relevant to the scientific work.