Peer Review Process
All articles are received by the editorial board are reviewing. The procedure for reviewing focused on the most objective assessment of the content of the article, determining its compliance the magazine and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages the materials of article. Accepted for publishing only articles of high professional level, based in the original analysis of selected scientific problem.
The executive editor may immediately reject a typescript that does not satisfy the topics or requirements of the publication. The editorial board supports the world standards of transparency of the expert evaluation process, therefore, it practices a double blind of typescripts: the author and the reviewer are not notified each other's names. Previously, all their personal data is removed from the text of articles and file properties. Articles submitted to the journal are sent to the review by two independent experts. Reviewers are familiarized with the annotation of the article, after which they agree or refuse to review this material.
Якщо наявний конфлікт інтересів, рецензент має відмовитися від рецензування й повідомити про це редакційну колегію (упродовж 2–3 днів)
In the case of refusal - the others are appointed. The reviewers process the material and evaluate its scientific level by completing the "Review Form", which indicates their comments. Additionally, experts can download files with corrected typescripts or materials that can be used to refine the article. After completing the main "Review forms," reviewers choose one of the suggested recommendations:
- Accept the typescript – the typescript is ready for publication and is accepted without changes
- Necessary to correct – is accepted if the author will take into account the stated remarks
- Return to re-review – necessary revision and re-review
- Submit to another edition – the subject matter of the presentation is suitable for another edition
- Reject the typescript – the typescript does not fit the requirements of the publication
- See comments – does not satisfy any of the previous recommendations.
By completing the review process, all relevant information is sent to the author. The author finalizes the typescript and uploads a new version to the journal. If the typescript has not been returned or the causes of the delay have not been reported to the editor, it is removed from the queue and deleted. Reviewers re-examine the revised typescript and recommend that it can be further published.
Appeal procedure:
- If the author does not agree with certain comments of the reviewer, he / she has the right to send an appeal in the form of "reviewer's remark - author's comment" to the editor. In this case the document is sent to the reviewer and, in conjunction with the editorial board, the corresponding decision on the typescript is taken.
2. In the event that reviewers choose mutually opposing resolutions on the submitted typescript (accept / reject), the editorial staff communicates with them and jointly reviews all comments to agree on the position for further publication of this material.
3. If the decision is not successful, the editorial board shall appoint an independent expert.
