All submitted manuscripts are checked for their correspondence with the themes and formal requirements of the journal. The journal conducts a double-blind peer review of all manuscripts. Reviewers remain anonymous to the author, and the authors' identity is not disclosed to the reviewers. At least two independent experts are selected by the editors amongst those having previous experience in the subject area.
Most papers are reviewed by two reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited in case the two previous reviews contradict each other. When choosing a reviewer, the editors are guided by the expertise of the reviewer and the absence of professional relationships between the author and the reviewer.
When submitting an article for reviewing, the author may indicate persons with whom there is or may be a conflict of interest caused by competition or cooperation. The editors will take this information into account.
In their work, reviewers are guided by the principles formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Based on these principles the "Editorial Ethics" was developed.
Review deadlines are set by the editor-in-chief, who strives to minimize the time between the submission of a manuscript and a decision on it.
The review covers the following aspects:
correspondence of the title to the content of the article;
topicality of the article, its correspondence to the latest developments in the field;
readability of the article in terms of language, style, layout, etc.;
novelty of the article in comparison with the previously published works;
other positive and negative features of the article that could be developed or corrected by the author;
recommendation to publish or to decline publication.
In addition to providing comments for the author, reviewers have the following five options to express their opinion on the article:
to accept the article;
to accept after minor corrections;
to accept after major corrections;
to resubmit for another review after major corrections;
to reject the article.
In case the reviewer recommends making changes to the article, his/her recommendations are sent to the author with a suggestion for revision. It is the author’s right to defend his/her position before the editorial board and the reviewers. A revised article is then re-submitted for another review.
If the article is accepted, the secretary notifies the author and informs him/her about the planned time of publication.
A positive review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication. The editorial board makes the final decision.
Peer review is confidential. The author receives the text of the review. Confidentiality is breached only in cases of plagiarism or falsification.