Peer-review process

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific articles published in the Collection by evaluating the materials by highly qualified experts.

The review covers the following issues:

  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;
  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the thematic areas of the Collection;
  • whether the content of the article has a certain novelty;
  • whether the article corresponds to the scientific level of the Collection;
  • whether it is expedient to publish the article taking into account the previously published literature on this issue and whether it is of interest to a wide range of readers;
  • what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the shortcomings of the article, which corrections and additions should be made by the author (if any).

The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors and is performed by two independent reviewers (double "blind" review). The anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the editors of the Collection.

Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the editorial office in electronic form for 2 years from the date of publication of the issue of the Collection, which contains the peer-reviewed article.

Scientific articles prepared in strict accordance with the Requirements that have passed the initial control in the editorial office are allowed for review. If there are comments at the stage of initial control, the article can be returned to the author for revision.

Review period - 14 working days from the date of receipt of the article.

The final decision on the article is made at a meeting of the editorial board consisting of: editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor (member of the editorial board) and editor-in-chief. The decision is made taking into account the received reviews.

The decision of the editors is sent to the author (s). Articles to be revised are sent to the author (s) together with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations for revision of the article. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.