THE REVIEWING PROCESS
The journal accepts articles of theoretical and methodological nature on the aforementioned scientific issues. Materials that do not meet the topics or requirements of the publication may be rejected by the executive editor upon reception.
The editors support world standards for the transparency of the peer review process, and therefore practice a double anonymous review of manuscripts: the author and the reviewer are not informed of each other's names. Preliminary, all their personal data is removed from the texts of articles and file properties.
Articles submitted to the journal are sent for review to two independent experts. Reviewers get acquainted with the annotation of the article, after which they agree or refuse to review this material. In case of refusing other reviewers are appointed.
Reviewers study the material and evaluate its scientific level by filling out the Reviewer's Report, where they indicate their comments. In addition, experts can download files with a revised manuscript or materials that can be used in finalizing the article.
After filling in the main Reviewer's Report, the experts choose one of the proposed recommendations:
• accept the article - the manuscript is ready for publication and is accepted without changes;
• needs for correction - it is accepted if the author corrects the specified remarks;
• return for re-review - revision and re-review are necessary;
• send to another journal - on the subject of the manuscript is suitable for another publishing;
• reject the article - the manuscript does not meet the requirements of the publication;
• see comments - none of the previous recommendations satisfy.
After the review process is completed, all relevant information is sent to the author. The author finalizes the manuscript and uploads a new version of it into the journal on-line system.
If the manuscript is not returned or the editor is not informed about the reasons for the delay, it is removed from the queue and deleted.
Reviewers re-examine the revised manuscript and make recommendations about the possibility of its further publication.
1. If the author does not agree with the specific comments of the reviewer, he has the right to send an appeal to the editor in the format “reviewer's comment - author's comment”. This document is sent to the reviewer, and, together with the editors, an appropriate decision regarding the manuscript is made.
2. If reviewers choose mutually opposite resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept / reject), the editors contact them and jointly consider all comments to agree on the position on the further publication of this material.
3. If the decision fails, the editors appoint an independent expert.
All articles published in the journal are tested in the Anti-Plagiarism system for borrowings in the text without links to the original (through search engines). In the event that the editorial staff has grounds for a more detailed check, additional tools are used to search for loans. CrossCheck and other similar tools check texts in foreign languages. The editors regard the presence of plagiarism in the article as a manifestation of the fact of scientific dishonesty on the part of the author; the editors cease further cooperation with such authors.