The submitted material is, preliminarily checked for plagiarism, after which it is sent for peer-review to two reviewers for a scientific assessment of the material.
Reviewing is carried out on the principle of "double" blind " reviewing", when neither the author / authors are given the names of reviewers, nor reviewers know the name of the author / authors. As reviewers, individuals (members of the editorial staff or external reviewers) with a scientific degree (scientific name) or leading specialists in an area close to the topic of the presented material are involved.
Peer-review is carried out within 5-10 days from the date of submission of the material for publication.
A review of each material is provided by the reviewer in the established by editorial board “Peer-review form”, which includes answers to specific questions with their consistent assessment, as well as a detailed assessment of the material and recommendations for the author. Reviews for each material are stored in the editorial office for 5 years.
The result of a peer-review should consist of the following solutions:
1) the material is recommended for publication in the introduced form (without comments);
2) the material is recommended for publication with a possible (at the discretion of the author) consideration of feedback of peer reviewers;
3) material is recommended for publication only on condition that the author must take into account the comments of reviewers;
4) the material is not recommended for publication.
If there are any comments and suggestions of the reviewers, as in the case of «the material is recommended for publication with a possible (at the discretion of the author) consideration of feedback of peer reviewers» , as well as «material is recommended for publication only on condition that the author must take into account the comments of reviewers», the contents of the items - “General comments and impressions of the reviewer” and “Comments to the author to improve the paper” are sent to an email address of the author/authors, indicating the period for making changes to the material (without specifying information about the reviewer).
In case of refusal to print material, the reasoned reason for refusal is sent to the author/authors.
If there is a reasoned disagreement of the author with the opinion of reviewers an additional peer-review is appointed, which takes into account the opinions of all members of the Editorial Board.
The editors of the journal must ensure that reviewers comply with the confidentiality conditions of any information about the manuscript submitted for scientific review. Discussion of the peer-reviewed manuscript by the reviewer with any third parties is not allowed. Prior to publication of the material, reviewers are not allowed to use or refer to the reviewed material.
The author can track the process of passing the material for publication in the "My Account" created by him when registering on the site.