Peer-review process
The editors receive articles that meet the policy of the journal and all requirements for publications. The executive secretary conducts a preliminary check of the compliance of the articles of the journal profile with the requirements for publications and provides them for review to reviewers, specialists in the issues under study.
Reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief or, under certain circumstances, a member of the editorial board. Also, highly qualified specialists with experience in a particular scientific field, as a rule, associate professors, candidates of sciences, professors, doctors of sciences, can be involved in the review.
Within two weeks, the reviewer prepares his conclusion on the compliance of the article with all editorial requirements and the possibility of its publication (the terms can be adjusted for the most favorable conditions for an objective review, but should not exceed three weeks).
The review is carried out confidentially according to the principles of double-blind review (double-blind review, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other).
The reviewer fills in the standard Review Form, in which he indicates his recommendations. The editors inform the author by e-mail of the results of the review.
If the reviewer notes the need to make corrections, the author finalizes the article, taking into account the wishes of the reviewer or exhaustively argues his position. The reviewer should familiarize himself with the corrected version and decide on the possibility of publication. The date of the positive conclusion of the reviewer is considered the date of acceptance of the article for publication.
The final decision on the possibility of publication, indicating the expected publication date, is made by the editor-in-chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board), about which the author is informed.
