Review

Processes of reviewing articles 

1. The article should be reviewed by a specialist at the place of work or education of the author. At this stage, the so-called “open peer review” is used by the official reviewer – an external specialist of the corresponding scientific profile (doctor of sciences). Such a review should contain information on the reliability of the results obtained, their relevance and novelty, as well as practical value with the recommendations for publication of the article. Such a review, together with the article, should be submitted by the author to the Editorial Board.

2. Review of an article by one of the members of the Editorial Board (single-blind review – the reviewer knows the author, but the author does not know the reviewer). All materials are evaluated according to the criteria (originality, innovation, the value of results in their field, the theoretical basis and review of conducted research and existing publications, methodology, literacy, compliance with editorial requirements).

3. After that, the article is sent to an independent expert in the relevant subject area. The double-blind review is used there (neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other). After review, the reviewer can make one of the following decisions:

• Publish as it is;

• Publish with minor changes;

• Submit to re-review (if significant changes are required);

• Refuse (if significant revision is required; however, the author may submit the revised material again);

• Refuse without permission to re-submit (if the material has fundamental deficiencies, contains plagiarism or does not correspond to the thematic scope of the publication).