Review Procedure

I. The manuscript of the article is considered by the editors who assess its correspondence to the scope of the journal and requirements for manuscript preparation. In case of a positive decision of the editors, the manuscript is sent for review.

II. The articles, registered in the editorial office, are subject to the double-blind review (both peer-reviewers and authors do not see each other’s personal data). The review is performed by highly-qualified specialists in the relevant research fields, who have the academic degrees of Doctor Habilitatus or Doctor of Philosophy. The reviewers are selected by the Head of the Editorial Board and/or the Assistant Editor from the database of reviewers of the journal and appointed with their consent.

III. As a rule, the reviewer concludes whether the article can be recommended for publishing in the journal within 10–12 business days from the moment the article is received. The terms of review, in each individual case, are determined, taking into consideration conditions for the most expeditious publication of the article, but they should not exceed one calendar month. If the review is impossible, the reviewer sends a motivated rejection to the editorial office within three days from the day the article is received.

ІV. The review should unambiguously characterize the theoretical or applied significance of the research, correlate the title of the article, the purpose of the article and the author’s conclusions with the existing scientific concepts. The necessary element of the review is the reviewers’ evaluation of the author’s (authors’) personal contribution(s) to solving the problem, its (their) relevance and novelty. The reviewers evaluate the style, logic and comprehensible presentation of the scientific level of the material, the completeness and adequacy of the outlined material, the reliability and validity of the author’s (authors’) conclusions, completeness, sufficiency and relevance of citations made by the author(s), the author’s (authors’) adherence to scientific ethics, in particular the absence of plagiarism in the peer-reviewed article.

The reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on the following requirements:

  • the results are relevant, have novelty and scientific value and correspond to the scope of the journal;
  • the style and format of the article correspond to the generally accepted norms and requirements;
  • the title and abstract correspond to the content of the article;
  • the material is presented clearly, logically, consistently, stylistically correctly;
  • the obtained results (models, statements, technical solutions) are valid and properly interpreted;
  • the structural components of the text, illustrative material and appendices are motivated;
  • the conclusions are valid and convincing;
  • there is a sufficient number of references, including foreign ones, which correspond to the content of the manuscript;
  • the graphs, figures, tables and formulas are relevant and comprehensible and are properly formatted;
  • the references are adequate and properly cited, all necessary source references are available. 

V. The reviewers’ comments are sent to the authors together with remarks and recommendations and the conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article:

  • accept without remarks;
  • accept after revision according to reviewers’ comments;
  • substantial update with re-review;
  • reject due to the fact that the article does not correspond to the profile of the journal;
  • reject due to the fact that the article contains already known facts.

VI. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills in the standardized form, which contains the final recommendations. The form is based on the generally accepted recommendations on the sequence and process of reviewing (Review Quality Instrument). The editorial office will notify the author of the review results by e-mail. If the review contains remarks and recommendations, the article is sent to the author for revision. The author should highlight the revised parts with a different colour and send the manuscript to the editorial office. The revised version of the article is submitted again to the reviewers who will make a decision and prepare the motivated conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article. After receiving the reviewers’ conclusions on the possibility of publishing the article, revised by the author, the Editorial Board of the journal makes the final decision about whether to include the article in the next issue of the journal. The date of the article’s acceptance for publication is the date, when the editorial office gets the positive reviewers’ conclusion (or the decision of the Editorial Board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the manuscript.

VII. In case of disagreement with the reviewers’ opinions, the author(s) of the article has (have) the right to provide reasonable objections to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is discussed at the meeting of the working group of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board can send the article to another specialist for additional or new review. The Editorial Board has the right to reject the publication of the articles in case the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the reviewers’ remarks and comments. In response to the reviewers’ requests, the Editorial Board may send the manuscript for a review to another specialist with adherence to the double-blind review standards.

The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publishing the article is taken by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by the Editorial Board. After making the decision on the possibility of publishing the article, the editorial office shall notify the author and indicate the expected date of publication.

VIII. If a positive decision on the possibility of publishing is received, the article is sent to the editorial portfolio of the journal and is published in the order of turn and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn, in the nearest issue of the journal).

Minor stylistic or formal corrections which do not affect the content of the article are made by the Editorial Board without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscript in its prepublishing format will be returned to the author on approval.

The responsibility for copyright infringement and failure to comply with the existing standards in article’s materials rests with the author(s).

The responsibility for the accuracy of the provided facts and data, the validity of findings, recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article rests with the author(s).

IX. Original reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for two years.