Peer Review Process

The purpose of reviewing is to improve the quality of the scientific articles published in the Collection due to the highly qualified experts’ evaluation.

The journal accepts articles of a theoretical and methodological nature from the scientific issues mentioned above. The senior editor or deputy senior editor may immediately reject a typescript that does not satisfy the topics or requirements of the publication. Review procedure involves checking for plagiarism, verification of compliance the article title and content, check the content of the article (more detail).

The review covers the following issues:

  • relevance of the article content to the topic stated in the title;
  • relevance of the article content to the thematic fields of the Collection;
  • clearly stated novelty of the article content ;
  • relevance of the article content to the scientific level of the Collection;
  • expediency to publish an article taking into account previously published literature on the given subject and a wide range of readers’ interest in it;
  • exactly stated praiseworthy aspects and shortcomings of the article, corrections and amendments to be made by the author (if any exist).

The editorial board supports the world standards of transparency of the expert evaluation process, therefore, it practices a single anonymized review of typescripts: the author doesn't know the identiy of the reviewer. Articles submitted to the journal are sent to the review by two independent experts. Reviewing is anonymous for authors and is carried out by two independent reviewers. Anonymity of reviewers is guaranteed by the Editorial Board of the Collection.

The external review involves domestic and foreign candidates (PhD) or doctors of sciences, having scientific papers on the issues that are stated in the article. An external reviewer is usually chosen randomly, taking into account his/her current work load and consent. Reviewers are familiarized with the annotation of the article, after which they agree or refuse to review this material. In the case of refusal - the others are appointed.

All reviewers should keep up with demand of the Committee on Publication Ethics and be objective and impartial.

Reviews and recommendations for each article are kept in the editorial office in soft copies within 2 years since the date of the Collection issue, which contains a peer-reviewed article.

Scientific articles strictly conforming to the Requirements, which have passed the primary control in the Editorial Board, are allowed to be reviewed. In case of remarks made at original inspection, the article may be sent back to the author in order to be revised.

The reviewing period is 7-21 days from the date when the article was received.

The final decision on the article is taken at a meeting of the Editorial Board comprising the Senior Editor, the Deputy senior editor and the Executive secretary (Assistant Editor). The decision is taken by reference to the received reviews.

The editorial decision is sent to the author (s). The articles to be improved are sent to the author (s) along with the text of the review, which contains specific revision recommendations. The improved version of the article is sent to be re-reviewed. In the case of the second negative review, the article is rejected and not subject to further consideration.

 Reviewing steps:

  1. The senior editor of the Collection writes out a referral to an article review. The reviewer should preferably be a member of the Editorial Board or an expert involved in active development of the relevant topic. A letter is sent by the Editorial Board to such a scientist with a request to review the article. The Deputy Senior Editor or Assistant Editor gives a registration code to the article and removes information about the author(s) from it (article coding). The coded article and a standard review form are enclosed with the letter.
  2. 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. Reviewing takes 7-10 days.

The review form should be only the University standard form.

Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their own needs. They should not use the knowledge of the content of the paper, before it is published, in their own interests.

Reviews are certified in accordance with the procedure established by the institution where the reviewer works. All reviewers are familiar with these provisions.

  1. After completing the main "Review forms," ​​reviewers choose one of the suggested recommendations:
  2. a) rejected. In case of refusal to publish the article the Editorial Office sends the author a motivated refusal. Not allowed for publication: articles not written in accordance with the requirements of the Editorial Board and the authors refuse to  make a technical article revision; articles whose authors do not perform constructive comments made by the reviewer or do not substantiate them.

In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial board of the Collection. By the decision of the Editorial Board, the article may be directed to be re-reviewed by a different expert. Having two negative reviews, the author is sent a motivated refusal to publish the paper, certified by the Senior Editor or the Deputy.

  1. b)sentto the author to be improved. The article which is adopted to be published, but needs improving, is sent to the author with comments made by a reviewer and the editor. The author must make all necessary corrections in the final version of the manuscript and return the corrected text to the Editor staff. After being improved, the article is re-reviewed by the same reviewer who made critical remarks, and the Editorial Board takes a decision about the possibility to publish the article. The articles sent to the authors to be corrected should be returned back to the Editorial Office at least 10 days after being received. The article handed back later the due date is published on the other date.
  2. c) adopted to be published. The available positive review is not a sufficient reason to publish the article. The final decision on the publication of controversial articles is approved by the Senior Editor of the Collection or Deputy editor-in-senior.
  3. Recommendations of reviewers are sent to the Senior Editor via electronic mail.
  4. After reviewing the reviewer returns the article and information package back to the Assistant Editor of the Editorial Board of the Collection.
  5. The final decision with respect to the article is made during a meeting of the Editorial Board. The decision is made with consideration of the received reviews.
  6. The article, which was accepted for publication, is handled further by the Editorial Staff in accordance with the production process of preparation of the article.
  7. In case of receiving a negative review, the author takes the article back to correct and improve the manuscript, then the article is independently re-reviewed.
  8. The revised variant of the article is sent for the second reviewing. In the event the second review is also negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
  9. Editorial Board does not enter into argument with authors of rejected articles.
  10. Reviews and recommendations for each article are stored in the Editorial Office in the electronic form during 2 years from the date of issue of the journal edition, where the reviewed article is published.

Reasons for refusal

  • Borrowing without specifying a source
  • The article was already published in another edition (including electronic editions and Internet).
  • The article is framed in non-compliance with the requirements
  • A significant discrepancy in links to text.
  • Absence or incompleteness of any component of metadata / contact information / postal address
  • Absence of a review (recommendation, assignment, reference) of the scientific adviser, certified with a signature and seal (only for authors that have no academic degree).
  • Absence of UDC
  • Absence of the list of references.
  • Insufficient volume of abstract
  • Insufficient volume of the list of references (less than 8 entries).
  • Categorical negative conclusion of a reviewer.


Appeal procedure:

  1. 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.