Reviewing

Articles submitted to the editorial office of Journal undergo a REVIEW process (with the anonymity of the reviewer ensured).

The editor-in-chief or managing editor evaluates each manuscript to determine whether it meets the journal's criteria (relevance to the subject area, topicality, formatting of the article). Manuscripts that do not pass the initial review are rejected; the author is notified of the decision. If the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, it is sent for double-blind peer review.

All articles are reviewed by at least (usually) two active scientists or more (if necessary); one external reviewer and one member of the Editorial Board are involved. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience in a particular field.

The reviewer's questionnaire covers the following issues:

– compliance of the article with the publication's profile;

– the existence of a conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author (the author and reviewer are interested parties due to their relationship as teacher and student, manager and subordinate, colleagues with joint works, etc.);

– originality of the text (the reviewer is provided with a technical report analysing similarities with other texts);

– whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;

– whether the structure of the scientific article is appropriate;

– relevance of the article and sufficiency of its disclosure;

– presence of scientific novelty and value, theoretical, practical, scientific and practical significance in the article;

– accessibility of the article to its target audience in terms of language, style, layout of material, clarity of tables, diagrams, figures, etc.;

– compliance with formatting requirements.

Based on the results of the review, the reviewer provides a conclusion on whether the article is recommended for publication, as well as comments indicating shortcomings and necessary corrections.

As a general rule, submitted articles are reviewed by the reviewer within two weeks. Depending on the length of the article, the review process may be shorter or extended to a month.

Based on the reviewers' conclusions, the editor-in-chief or designated editor makes (two weeks) further recommendations to the authors regarding their next steps: 1) recommend for publication without changes;
2) recommend for publication with minor changes/ clarifications; 3) recommend for publication only after the specified shortcomings have been corrected; 4) do not recommend for publication. The editor-in-chief or designated editor reserves the right to reject an article that does not meet the established requirements or the subject matter of the publication.

An article not recommended for publication will not be accepted for reconsideration.