Review Process and Duties of Reviewers

Review process

The manuscript goes through a double-blind peer review: neither authors, nor reviewers know each other. Submitted manuscripts are directed to at least one, but usually two external experts who work in the relevant area.

The article goes through a double-bling peer review. If the referee reports are positive, the article is recommended to print. If both referee reports are negative, the article is rejected. In case if reviews are contrary (one positive and one negative), then editorail board sends the article for review to the third reviewer. Editors reserve the right to accept an article for publishing if it does not meet certain requirements, but subject to finalization of the text by the author. The final decision on admission of article to publication is accepted by the editorial team. In case of rejection of the article, the author may read the referee reports and editorial modifications.

The average time, during which the preliminary assessment of manuscript is conducted - 30 days.    
The average time during which the reviews of articles are conducted - 60 days.                                 
The average time in which the article is published - 150 days. 

 

Duties of Reviewers

• Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• The peer reviewers check a number of issues in the manuscript including assessing the validity of the research methodology and procedures. They would also be vigilant for any unethical practice in the research or plagiarism. If appropriate, they may recommend revisions and re-submission of an article. In other cases they may recommend rejection for various reasons.
• Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer's citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
• The Editor of a journal is reliant on its reviewers to offer guidance on whether to accept or reject an article.
• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the Editor.
• Acceptance and rejection of submitted articles must be grounded on the peer reviewer's arguments which should be clear and avoid any personal criticism.