Review Procedure

The peer review process is aimed at improving the quality of published scientific results in order to disseminate and popularize scientific research.

The process of reviewing the submitted article manuscript includes two stages: formal and content stages.

1. The formal stage determines the correspondence of the article to the remit of the journal, checks the text design and the uniqueness:

  1. in case of inconsistency with the remit of the journal, the author(s) is given an appropriate response on refusal to accept the article for consideration;

  2. in case of a large number of the design violations, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for revision;

  3. checking for uniqueness is carried out using the Antiglagiat.ru anti-plagiarism system; the result of uniqueness is advisory in nature; cases when the amount of matching content found in the text exceeds the threshold, are considered individually and the editors can accept the manuscript for further consideration, return the article for revision or refuse publication.

2. At the content stage, the article is sent for double-blind review:

  1. the authors do not know the reviewer, the reviewer is not informed about the author — it is necessary to delete the data and metadata of the authors before sending the materials in accordance with the instruction;

  2. the editorial board members or invited experts act as reviewers;

  3. primarily, one reviewer is engaged, but the article can be sent to several reviewers by the decision of the editorial board;

  4. the consideration of the article by the reviewer can take up to two months;

  5. the following information is indicated in the review:

    • a) the research rationale;

    • b) the correspondence between the research name, goal and results;

    • c) the level of previous studies analysis; the list of sources should contain scientific publications (journals, monographs) for the last five years on the research topic, it should not consist only of links to previous publications of the author;

    • d) the degree of statistical information use;

    • e) the presence of the scientific novelty;

    • f) the level of the scientific result substantiation;

    • g) remarks, suggestions, comments;

    • h) a general conclusion on the result of the consideration of the article and recommendation for publication;

  6. the author(s) receive a copy of the review and learn about the review results, following which there are three options:

    • a) refused of publication, and there is no further correspondence on the given manuscript;

    • b) returned for revision: corrections are made or a reasoned response is given to the comments and suggestions of the reviewer; after receiving the revised version, the manuscript is again sent to the same reviewer (or reviewers); when both parties are satisfied, the article is recommended for publication;

    • c) recommended for publication;

  7. the articles recommended for publication are approved by the editorial board to the corresponding issue; the article may not be published in the upcoming issue, but in one of the subsequent ones;

  8. the editorial office keeps the reviews for five years; a copy of the review is provided to the relevant departments upon request.