- The review process is anonymous for both the reviewer and the author (“double-blind peer review”). Reviewers can be either independent researchers (external review) or experts from the editorial board (internal review). By decision of the editorial board, the manuscript may be accepted for publication, rejected, or returned to the author for revision. The decision is communicated to the author in writing within two months after submission of the manuscript.
- If the reviewer gives positive feedback to the manuscript, the corresponding comments and recommendations are sent to the author, and after making all the necessary corrections, the article is sent to the production editor to prepare it for publication in the next issue of the journal.
- The editorial board accepts for consideration only new and previously
unpublished materials. The authors undertake to comply with ethical
standards and regulations for scientific research. By submitting material, the authors confirm the originality of the text and the absence of copyright infringement. All materials are checked for anti-plagiarism.
Peer review memo
The purpose of peer review is to provide an objective assessment of research and academic texts.
The review notes the following characteristics of the article:
- Relevance of the issue within the framework of the existing academic debate.
- Scientific novelty of the problems discussed in the article. The degree of elaboration of the topic, the validity of the conclusions, the scientific novelty of the recommendations.
- State of the source base.
- Compliance with the requirements when working with the text (writing style, compliance with the rules for formatting footnotes and notes, compilation of a bibliography).
- Scientific contribution of the author.
Options for the reviewer's conclusion (at the reviewer's choice):
- Recommend the article for publication in its presented form.
- Recommend the article for publication, subject to the reviewer’s comments.
- Do not recommend the article for publication.
In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer is obliged to inform the
editor about this and refuse to review the article. Conflicts of interest may be due to personal relationships, beliefs and scientific rivalries that interfere with impartial perception, review, and decision-making on the publication of research results.