ISSN 2308-8559 (Print)
ISSN 2415-8224 (Online)
The main purpose of the review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor quality practiced scientific research and to ensure the coordination of the interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the research was conducted. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, the reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for the elimination of cases of their violation.
The editorial office uses Double-Blind Peer Review in its work.
1. All articles submitted to the editorial board are reviewed.
2. For all submitted articles, the degree of uniqueness of the author's text is determined using the appropriate software.
3. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent to the review profile. Appoints reviewers as Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
4. The initial evaluation of the author's manuscript is carried out by the editor-in-chief (or his deputy), determines the scientific value, quality of design, relevance of the study. Resolves issues for further consideration.
5. The accepted article is registered and sent to the editorial board, where it is considered by specialists in the relevant field and the editor-in-chief is invited to appoint reviewers. Candidates for reviewers are selected at a meeting of the editorial board and make a joint decision with the editor-in-chief.
6. Two independent reviewers who are not members of the journal's editorial board are appointed for review. Reviewers are highly qualified specialists in the field of science who have a doctorate or candidate of science degree, as well as recent publications on topics on which articles can be reviewed. The approximate review period of the article is 14 days, but should not exceed 21 days.
7. The purpose of the review is to help the author to improve the text, to prevent the dissemination of information that does not correspond to scientific content. Review of manuscripts is confidential, which the editorial board informs reviewers.
8. If the reviewer for good reasons (scientific, ethical, conflict of interest) does not agree to accept the article, he notifies the editors of the refusal. The editorial board decides on the appointment of another reviewer. The author and the reviewer interact through the executive secretary of the journal.
9. Authors are not informed of the names of the Reviewers, the names of the Authors are not communicated to the Reviewers. Interaction between Reviewers and Authors is carried out only through authorized members of the editorial board. The editors do not disclose information about the manuscript (content, review process, critical comments of reviewers, final decision), except for members of the editorial board, the author and reviewers. Reviews are submitted only to authorized members of the editorial board and the Author.
10. Based on the results of expert evaluation of the scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication without revision,
- recommend the article for publication after revision by the author taking into account the comments and wishes of the reviewer,
- recommend the article for publication only after radical revision.
11. If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision, taking into account comments, radical revision or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the reason for this decision. To record the results of the review, the editorial board uses a developed standard form of review, which is posted on the journal's website.
12. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should:
- pay special attention to the relevance and significance of the scientific problem raised in the article, the relevance of the article to the collection,
- characterize the sequence, logic and level of language proficiency in research the title of the article and the goals and objectives,
- to assess the validity of the conclusions of the study and the degree of their scientific novelty,
- to assess the theoretical and applied value of research,
- to assess the reliability, relevance and reliability of data and sources of information , graphs, drawings, the quality of visualization of research results;
- to assess the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources;
- to assess the author's personal contribution to solving the problem;
- drugs found in the manuscript of the article, provide the author with recommendations for improvement, deepening research on this topic or the discovery of new aspects of the scientific problem.
13. Authors of scientific manuscripts must be informed of the results of the review by sending reviews to the e-mail addresses provided in the data on the authors.
14. Scientific articles can be sent for re-review after their radical revision, carried out on the recommendation of the reviewer.
15. Scientific articles can be sent, if necessary, for additional review in case of a heated discussion about the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
16. The reviewer sends the completed review to the editorial office by e-mail in the form of a file with a completed review form or a scanned copy of the review, or transmits (sends) in paper form.
17. In case of refusal to correct the reviewer's remarks, the article is not allowed to be published.
18. Manuscripts of articles accepted for publication are not returned to the author.
19. Manuscripts of articles not accepted for publication, together with the text of the motivated refusal, are returned to the author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.