Reviewing Procedure

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed.  Peer review is defined as receiving consultation/advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the field. Internal reviewing is organized by the members of the editorial board, reviewing is ensured by specialists, non-members of the editorial board.

1. The Executive Secretary checks whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s profile and technical requirements and sends it to three reviewers. The reviewers must hold doctoral degree and specialize in the field closest to the topic of the reviewed manuscript, and have recent publications in the field over the last three years.

2. Deadlines for reviewing shall be determined individually for each submission, with the aim to ensure most operative publication of the article. Normally, reviewing is completed with in one month.

3. Reviews shall answer the following questions:

  • a) does the content match the topic in the title;

  • b) is it relevant within the context of the most recent developments in the field;

  • c) is its language, style, structure comprehensive for the readers, are the tables, diagrams, illustrations and formulae clear from the readers’ perspective;

  • d) is it feasible in the context of earlier publications;

  • e) what are the advantages and disadvantages, what corrections and additions are recommended.​

4. The reviewer then recommends the manuscript in view of the identified disadvantages or does not recommend it for publication.

​5. Reviewing is confidential. Neither the reviewer, nor the author are informed of personal details and affiliation of each other (double blind review). Any breach of confidentiality is only possible when the reviewer reports falsification or fabrication of the matters addressed in the paper.

​6. If the reviewer recommends amendments and further elaboration of the article, the Executive Secretary shall send the text of the review to the author for his/her consideration or grounded disapproval while preparing the new version of the paper. The updated (revised) paper shall be resent for reviewing.

​7. The article that is not recommended by the reviewer shall not be accepted for a second review. The refusal letter with the negative review attached thereto shall be sent to the author by email, fax or post. All negative reviews are subject of discussion at a session of the editorial board. On special occasions, the board reserves the right to accept a submission for publication or send it to other reviewers, upon appeal submitted by one of the board members.

​8. A positive review does not provide sufficient ground for publication. The final decision on feasibility of publication is made by the editorial board and is reported in the minutes of its session.

​9. As soon as the board makes its decision to accept a submission for publication, the Executive Secretary shall inform the author and shall determine the dates of the publication.

Please pay attention to the main principles of professional ethics:

Reviewing Ethics

  • The editors shall ensure confidentiality of the review process and inform the reviewers on strict ethical principles to be observed in reviewing process;
  • Reviewing is anonymous. Reviewers receive anonymous manuscripts. Negative reviews are sent to the authors without signature and name of the reviewer, his/her function or place of work. Any breach of anonymity is only possible if the reviewer reports on falsification or fabrication of matters addressed in the manuscript, or in case of plagiarism;
  • The reviewer shall provide objective and well-grounded evaluation of the research findings. No personal criticism is acceptable;
  • The reviewer who does not have, in his own judgment, sufficient qualifications to do the evaluation, or cannot be objective (for instance, when there is a conflict of interests with the author or his/her organization), shall inform the editor thereof and request not to assign him/her with reviewing of this manuscript;
  • Positive reviews are not a sufficient ground for publication. The final decision on feasibility of a publication shall be upon the editorial board.