Review policy

Duties of Reviewers

1. To ensure objective evaluation of all the submitted manuscripts, each manuscript undergoes a peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field.
2. Since the review of manuscripts is an important step in the publishing process, each scientist is required to do some work on the review.
3. If a selected reviewer is not convinced that his/her qualification is in line with the level of research presented in the manuscript, he/she shall immediately return the manuscript.
4. The reviewer should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and exposition, and consider the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
5. The reviewer should consider the possibility of a conflict of interest when the manuscript is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript to the editor without review, indicating the conflict of interest.
6. The reviewer should treat the manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown to other people or discussed with others colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone's special advice.
7. The reviewers should adequately explain and reason their opinions so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any allegation that the conclusion, result or argument previously stated in the manuscript may have been previously published must be accompanied by the appropriate citation or reference.
8. The reviewer should note any instances of insufficient citation of works carried out by other scientists.
9. The reviewer should draw the editor’s attention to any significant similarity between the manuscript under review and any published paper or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.
10. The reviewer should provide feedback in a timely manner.
11. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript reviewed, except with the consent of the author.

Our journal implements a double-blind peer review (i.e. submissions are reviewed by an independent expert in the matching discipline with anonymity for both author and referee) of submitted manuscripts that encourages authors to meet accepted standards. It is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Peer review provides authors an opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of their submissions. The review form can be found at the bottom of the page.

A reviewer is asked to pay special attention to the following issues:

Adequate referencing prior work of the researchers who made initial contributions to the field.
Presence of a clear abstract (500-600 characters) that renders a concise summary of the paper; its structure may mirror the structure of the paper.

A clear specification of the author’s contribution.

Average time from submission to first decision: 4 weeks

After the review the reviewer’s conclusion with comments are sent to the author. A corrected version of the manuscript should be returned to the editor no later than 15 days after receiving the review. Otherwise, the editorial committee may reject the paper or postpone its publication.

The time from submission to online publication on average is 12 weeks.

Acceptance Rate: 76%