All scientific articles submitted for publication in the journal are reviewed for the purpose of expert evaluation of their correspondence to the journal scope, scientific content, information content, novelty, quality of presentation and relevance. All reviewers are recognized experts in the scope of peer-reviewed materials.
Rewieving is "Single-blind" peer review that means the identity of the reviewer is anonymous, but the author’s name and affiliation are on the paper. The maximum period for review is three months.
After receiving the review, the editors send an electronic copy to the author, who is responsible for communicating with the editorial staff. The article sent to the author for revision should be returned in corrected form within a month (the changes in the text of the article should be highlighted).
It is necessary to attach a letter from the authors to the revised manuscript, containing answers to all the comments and explaining all the changes made in the article. The article, revised by the authors, is sent back for review again.
After receiving a positive review, the article is considered accepted for publication and is included in the publication plan.
In case of rejection of the article, the editorial board sends a notification to the author about the refusal to publish and encloses a copy of the negative review.
The reviews on the articles are stored in the editorial office for five years. The editorial office sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the RF upon request.
1. Recommended Review Criteria:
- relevance of scope;
- scientific novelty;
- title should cleary describe content;
- consistency of material presentation;
- analysis on subject matter;
- statistical processing of experiment results;
- level of applied research methods;
- citation of scientific sources;
- scientific style of presentation, terminology
2. Comments and recommendation for improvement of the manuscript should be objective and principled, aimed at increasing the scientific and methodological levels of the article.
3. The final part of the review should contain reasoned conclusions about the content of the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the appropriateness of its publication in the journal.
4. The form and size of the review are not regulated.
