Peer review process

1. The author submits an article to the editorial board that meets the requirements of the journal’s policy and the rules for preparing articles for publication. Manuscripts, which do not conform to the accepted requirements, are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, about which their authors are notified. The article is registered by the executive secretary in the journal of articles registration, indicating the date of receipt, title, full name of author or authors, place of work of the author or authors. The article is assigned an individual registration number;

2. The executive secretary conducts a preliminary assessment of the articles received by the editorial board, the correspondence of their content to the profile and subject matter of the journal, sends them for review to the members of the editorial board, scientific editors of sections, specialists on the problems under consideration;

3. All manuscripts, which submitted to the editorial board, are sent according to the research profile to one, and, if it is necessary, to two reviewers. The editor-in-chief of the journal appoints reviewers. By decision of the Chief Editor of the journal (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be assigned to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of choosing reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board;

4. To review articles, reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of a scientific journal, and outside highly qualified specialists who have deep professional knowledge and experience in specific scientific areas, as a rule, doctors of sciences, professors;

5. After receiving the article for consideration (within 10 days), the reviewer assesses the possibility of reviewing the materials, based on the correspondence of his own qualifications to the author’s research direction and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer can refuse to review and inform the editorial board about it. The latter should decide on the appointment of another reviewer;

6. As a rule, within 20 days the reviewer concludes that the article can be printed. The terms of reviewing can be changed in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided, but must not exceed 1 calendar month;

7. Peer review is carried out confidentially on the principles of single - blind peer review (In single - blind peer review, only the reviewers are anonymous. Reviewers know the names and biographies of the authors, but the authors do not know them). The interaction between the author and reviewers takes place through the executive secretary of the journal. At the request of the reviewer and in agreement with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction between the author and the reviewer can take place in an open mode (such a decision is made only if the openness of the interaction will improve the style and logic of the presentation of the research material);

8. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out the final recommendations for this article. The editorial board sends the results of the review to the author by e-mail;

9. If the reviewer points out the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. To the revised article, the author adds a letter containing answers to all comments and explaining all the changes that have been made to the article. The corrected version is re-provided to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editors of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the article;

10. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial office of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board can send the article for additional or new peer review to another specialist. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unable or unwilling to take into account the wishes and comments of the reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board can provide the article by a friend to the reviewer with the obligatory observance of the principles of single-blind review;

11. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his behalf, by a member of the editorial board), and, if it is necessary, by a meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After making a decision on admitting an article to publication, the executive secretary informs the author about this and indicates the expected publication date;

12. In case of receiving a positive decision on the possibility of publication, the article enters the editorial portfolio of the journal for its publication in the order of priority and relevance (in some cases, by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn, in the next issue of the journal);

13. The final decision on the composition of printed articles is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council, about which a corresponding note is made on the second page of the journal’s cover;

14. An article approved for publication is provided to the technical editor. Minor corrections of a stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscript in the form of an article layout is returned to the author for approval;

15. Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article lies with the author of the article. Responsibility for the reliability of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations, the scientific and practical level of the article rests with the author and reviewer.