Reviewing

Each article submitted to the editorial office undergoes mandatory double-blind review.

The article is evaluated by two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. At least one of the reviewers represents an institution different from the affiliation of the authors. When selecting reviewers, their scientific achievements, the presence of publications in the relevant field, academic reputation and previous review experience are taken into account.

This review procedure ensures maximum objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation by preserving the anonymity of authors and reviewers. It also ensures that articles are evaluated solely on the basis of their scientific value, quality of research, and relevance to the collection profile.

The review period is no more than three weeks.

Based on the results of reviewing the submitted article, reviewers may make one of the following decisions:
‒ Publish the article in the author's editorial office;
‒ Publish with minor changes agreed upon by the authors and the editorial board;
‒ Return to authors for revision (taking into account reviewers' comments) with mandatory re-review after making significant changes;
‒ Refuse publication with the possibility of resubmitting the article after significant revision (taking into account the comments of the reviewers);
‒ Refuse publication without the possibility of resubmission due to fundamental shortcomings of the material;
‒ Reject due to the article not being relevant to the journal's topic.

The reviewers' comments requiring correction are forwarded to the author by the editor-in-chief of the collection. The author's responses and the corrected version of the article are sent back to the reviewer. The article can be published only if there are two positive reviews.