Peer-review process

The reviewer carries out scientific examination of the copyrighted materials in order to objectively evaluate the quality of the submitted article and to determine the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards. When evaluating an article, the reviewer should be impartial and follow the following principles:

  1. Expert evaluation should help the author to improve the quality of the text of the article, and the editor-in-chief - to decide on the publication.
  2. A reviewer who does not consider himself an expert in the subject area of ​​the article or knows that he/she will not be able to submit a review in a timely manner, must notify the editor-in-chief and refuse to review.
  3. The reviewer may not be the author or co-author of the submitted review paper. This also applies to the scientific supervisors of the degree holders and/or employees of the department in which the author w
  4. Any manuscript received by an expert from the editorial board for review is a confidential document. It cannot be discussed with anyone other than these.
  5. The reviewer should be objective. It is inadmissible to make personal comments in the review to the author. The reviewer must express his / her opinion clearly and reasonably.
  6. The reviewer should give an objective conclusion on the sufficiency of citation of articles already published in the literature on the subject. It is accepted to pay attention to the presence of self-citation, which should not exceed 25-30% and to use the latest literature on the problem.
  7. A reviewer should not use information and ideas from a review article for personal gain, while respecting the principle of confidentiality.
  8. The reviewer should not accept the review of the manuscript in the presence of a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration or other relations with any authors or organizations associated with the article.
  9. The reviewer should identify published articles that are relevant to the peer-reviewed article and are not cited by the author. Any assertion in a review that some observations, conclusion, or argument from a peer-reviewed article have already been encountered in the literature should be accompanied by an accurate bibliographical reference to the source of the information. The reviewer should also pay attention to the editor-in-chief for a significant similarity or partial coincidence of the peer-reviewed article with any other previously published article.
  10. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship, or falsification of data, he/she must immediately contact the editorial board for further review or collective review of the author’s article, with further discussion of its results at the meeting of the editorial board.
  11. The editor-in-chief, the editorial staff of the journal should ensure the confidentiality of the names and other information concerning the reviewers. If necessary, when deciding whether to involve a new reviewer, the latter may be informed of the names of previous reviewers.