The reviewing process is double-blind to ensure that both reviewers' and the authors' personalities remain undisclosed.
Upon receiving a submitted manuscript through the online editing system, the Editorial Office makes its primary evaluation and assigns the Editor-in-charge to make a decision either to decline or admit it to review. In the latter case, a review request is sent to potential reviewers who are experts in the respective field(s). The request includes manuscript title and abstract, login instructions and a link to the manuscript reviewing page in the electronic submission system. Standard timeframe for reviewing is 15 days.
The review should answer the following questions:
- The problem is actual and corresponds to the Journal's scope
- The material is of scientific novelty
- Modern methods and approaches are used corresponding to the research goals
- The conclusions cast no doubts
- Title corresponds to the content, chosen goal is convincing
- Abstract reflects the article content
- Methods are detailed and clear
- Results are correct, Discussion is adequate
- Tables and Figures are informative and correspond to the content (if present)
- Titles, legends and indications are adequate (if present)
- The body of modern references of global sсale is sufficient
- References in the text correspond to the Referece list
- Manuscript size and structure match the article type
- Text is devoid of gross stylistic and grammatical errors
- Reference style is respected
QUALITY OF PRESENTATION
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
MANUSCRIPT ORGANIZATION, not applicable for free format submissions
Accept Submission as is and forward to technical processing.
Revisions Needed which may be handled by the Editors.
Resubmit for Review after remarkable improvement according to the Reviewer’s comments.
Resubmit Elsewhere as the paper doesn’t suit the Journal.
Decline Submission as it is not acceptable for publication anywhere.
See Comments – if none of the options above are suitable, specific comments are welcome.
If the reviewer considers it necessary to make changes to the manuscript or refuse to accept the manuscript for publication, the editors ask for clear and sufficiently detailed comments that will allow the authors to make all the necessary edits or consider criticism for their further work.
If a re-examination is necessary, the manuscript will be sent to the reviewers after changes made by the authors and editorial check, alongside with the response from the authors indicating the corrections made (responses to comments), as proposed by all reviewers.
Reviewer's suggestions for correcting text can be entered directly into the manuscript file and downloaded (flagging changes using annotations, tracking changes, or highlighting text).
To preserve the anonymity of the review, the Editorial Office asks the reviewers not to include in the review and edited manuscript information that discloses the identity of the reviewer. These data are available to the editor in his personal account.
The Editorial Office retains the right to request raw data and other additional materials concernining the manuscript under consideration. This can be done at any stage of reviewing and editorial processing to check if the calculations are valid, the conclusions are adequate, etc.
Basing upon the reviews obtained, the editor makes a decision whether to reject, accept or revise the paper. In the latter case, the authors are expected to resubmit the improved manuscript alongside with the response to reviewers’ comments, indicating each correction made according to the comments and explaining each case when the suggested correction was not made. In a case when the editor finds the review unsatisfactory, another expert is to be found for reviewing. Only corrected and edited (according to editors/reviewers’ comments, if present) manuscripts are being accepted.
Response to reviewers’ comments form
Reviewer A comments
Comment # 1 «text of the comment»
Response: we agree, corrected (p. 1, lines 5-15)
Comment # 2 «text of the comment»
Response: we do not agree due to the following reasons.....
Reviewer B comments
Comment # 1 «text of the comment»
Response: see response to the reviewer A comment # 2