Peer Review Process

The Editors accept theoretical and methodological articles concerning the journal's focus and scope. Manuscripts which do not correspond the main approach or the edition's requirements can be declined at the stage of initial review directly by an Editor-in-Chief.

The Editors support international high standards of the peer review process transparency, therefore practice the double "blind" peer review: authors and reviewers do not know each other's names. Previously all of their personal information removed from the articles texts and files properties.

The submitted articles are sent for reviewing to two independent experts.

The reviewers meet with the material and estimate its scientific level filling "Review Form", where specify their remarks and comments.

After filling the basic "Review Form" experts select one of the offered recommendations:

On completion of reviewing process all corresponding information sends to the author. The author improves the article and uploads an updated version. If the article is not returned or the edition is not informed about delay, the article is taken off from a turn and deleted.

The reviewers re-examine improved manuscript and provide a recommendation on the possibility of its further publication.

The purpose of internal review is a comprehensive expert assessment of the quality of scientific articles on the following criteria:

In the case of the negative internal reviews the editorial board
reserves the right not to publish the article.

An appeal procedure is rejected by the reviewers of the article:

  1. If the author does not agree with certain comments, he has the right to send to the editor's appeal in the format "reviewer comments - comment author". This document is sent to the reviewer and, in collaboration with the editors, a decision is taken on the manuscript.
  2. In the case when reviewers choose mutually antithetical resolutions on the submitted manuscript (accept / reject), the editors skontaktowa with them and jointly consider all comments to harmonize positions on further publication of this material.
  3. If the decision fails, the editorial Board appoints an independent expert.