All articles submitted to the Editorial Board are subject to mandatory double blind peer review. This means that the reviewers of the paper won't get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won't get to know the identity of the reviewer.
On receiving the manuscript, it is evaluated if it meets the general requirements (correspondence to the journal topics, presence of the necessary meta-data, format).
Then the manuscript is anonymized by the academic secretary; all author identities are removed from it. In this form, the article reaches the Editor-in-Chief who forwards it to reviewers whose names are given on the web site. It is possible to invite guest reviewers with knowledge in the field of the manuscript under consideration. Double-blind peer review may take up to 2-3 months. The time of the overall material evaluation may take up to 18 months.
The reviewers determine whether the article meets the content and formal requirements of the journal and conforms to the general rules of publishing ethics. On the results of the peer review the manuscript can be recommended for publication “as is”, be accepted pending revisions, or be rejected.
In case the article is rejected, the author is sent a motivated conclusion. At the same time, the editorial board reserves the right not to provide full texts of reviews to the article authors. The names of reviewers who have given negative conclusions shall not be made open.
If the article is accepted pending revisions, the author is sent a list of the issues that need improvement. The allotted for for correction is from 10 days to 2 months. Once these issues are adjusted for, the manuscript will receive another review prior to publication made, as a rule, by the same referees.
If the article is accepted for publication, its text is passed on to the issuing editor who handles the ongoing correspondence with the author(s).
List of reviewers