The quality control system

The paper sent will be reviewed undergoing several stages:

  1. First, the paper is checked for meeting formal requirements (formatting, citation and list of literature finalisation, paper structure, etc.). In case of requirement discrepancy, the paper is sent back to the author for revisiting.
  2. Next, the manuscripts are checked for plagiarism, ghost writing and borrowings. If a paper is found to have copied any previous work, it will be automatically rejected from publication.
  3. The Chief Editor conducts preliminary analysis of the subject matter, topicality, relevance and originality of the paper, which serves the basis for making a decision on the expediency of paper forwarding for reviewing.
  4. The paper that is formatted in accordance with the requirements – is clearly structured, is deprived of plagiarism and borrowings, presents the results of original research – is further sent to two reviewers who are specialists in the subject area for peer reviewing, not naming the author of the paper.
  5. Reviewers check and analyse the content of the manuscripts and provide their expertise. The review process may take several weeks.
  6. Reviewers send the results of the paper's analysis to the editor-in-chief with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper. The review may include recommendations for the need to revisit and introduce the improvements to the paper. This paper, however, is potentially recommended for publication. After considering the recommendation and suggestions of the reviewers by the authors, the paper may be recommended for publication.
  7. If the ratings of the reviewers contradict one another, the editor-in-chief sends the paper to the third reviewer.
  8. The authors receive the electronic versions of the corresponding reviews by e-mail without specifying the name of the reviewer, following the principle of anonymity. The notification contains the information on the preliminary acceptance or rejection of the paper, the reasons for the rejection, the terms and time constrains for author’s revision.
  9. After the author has introduced all the necessary changes conforming to the recommendations and suggestions of the reviewers, the manuscript is sent to the same reviewer for revision.
  10. The Herald of ISN editorial team discusses the results of reviewing and revisiting the manuscripts by the authors and takes the final decision on the selection of the papers for the next issue of the journal.
  11. Following the editorial team meeting the authors are informed whether their papers will be included in the forthcoming issue or postponed to the next one if the recommendations of the reviewers were partially ignored.