Peer-review process

The reviewer/referee fulfills the scientific expertise of manuscript in order of objective evaluation of the quality of proposed article and determination of the level of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards.

While evaluating the paper the reviewer should be impartial and adhere to the following  principles:

  1. The reviewer cannot be author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, nor the academic or professional supervisor of its author(s).
  2. The reviewer may refuse to review having informed the editor-in-chief. The manuscript should not be reviewed in case of conflict of interest between reviewer and author.
  3. Any manuscript to be reviewed is a confidential document. The reviewer must not discuss it with any other person except for the members of the editorial board.
  4. The reviewer should be objective. Personal comments not relevant to the topic of the paper are inadmissible. The reviewer should express his/her opinion clearly and reasonably.
  5. The reviewer should be well-versed in current literature on the topic at hand. When commenting on the bibliography or references, the reviewer should clearly indicate the sources.
  6. The reviewer must respect the principle of confidentiality, and cannot use the information and ideas of a peer-reviewed paper for personal gain.
  7. In the case of suspicion of plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, the reviewer must propose a collective review by the editorial board.
  8. The reviewer should provide an objective review on the sufficiency of references to the works on the subject of paper. It is customary to pay attention to the presence of self-citation; it should not exceed 25-30%, and to the use of the latest literature on the problem.
  9. The reviewer may use the link for Review Form or write the review in any form.
  10. The principle of double blind is used in the journal.
  11. The reviewer is selected by the editorial board or by the editor-in-chief.