Peer review

All submitted articles are initially treated by editors to assess the relevance to the subjects and journal standards. After their affirmative decision given manuscripts are sent to external experts in the relevant field. The manuscript undergoes a double-blind peer review: neither authors nor reviewers know each other.

For our journal is very important the reference process and exists to have been published only high quality researches. Some scientists consider that the reference process has a negative impact because it may lead to rejection of their manuscript. Remember, these changes to your articles are part of the publishing process and directs only to improve its quality and fills the missing gaps.Deadline from 1 week till 2 months

The peer review process may cause an article’s revision. This can be one or more of the following reasons:

  • the article has bad or not correct structure;

  • the article has not sufficiently detailed;

  • the article has no scientific novelty;

  • the article does not clearly highlight which part of the conclusions is new to science

  • the article has an insufficient number of relevant links;

  • the article contains the theory, concepts or conclusions that are not fully supported by data, arguments or information;

  • the article does not provide a sufficiently detailed description of methods and materials that are not supported by the results of a simulation or other type of modelling, analytical justification, etc.;

  • the article lacks a clear description or explanation of hypotheses to be tested, for example, there is no statistical or experimental samples, descriptions, experiments, etc.;

  • the article insufficiently described methodology of experimentation or mistakes;

  • the article does not give the necessary analysis;

  • the article has a poor quality language.

During a repeated analysis of the article and the response to the reviewers ' comments, pay special attention to all the issues raised by the editor and reviewers, describe any changes to the article in response to the letter; perform additional experiments or analyses, which the reviewer recommends. In your response, describe separately in details when you agree with the reviewer and disagree; clearly show all changes in your paper, that you made highlighted, explain your answer. Return revised manuscript and response letter within the editor’s deadline.

The reviewer is a recognized expert in your subject area. The suggestions made by the reviewer may not be correct only once the reviewer does not understand the idea of your manuscript. This misunderstanding is only possible complex language of your work, "scientism". If the reviewer couldn't understand your work, and the reader of the article will not be able to properly understand a research. Thus, you should make the text more clear and understandable for the reader.

If after making all changes you still get a refusing, your perseverance has the high importance to publish an article. In time, correctly and scientifically responding to the editors and reviewers comments, can give a result as a final publication of the article. Better not to choose another journal, until one of the following events become:

  • editor replied that the subject of your work is fundamentally not consistent with the journal’s directions;

  • editor rejects your manuscript without the right to further revision;

  • your manuscript has received a refusal after answer to all corrections and comments of the reviewer;

  • you have received a refusal from two reviewers;

  • the process of reviewing manuscripts takes much more time than is necessary for the journal and the editors cannot speed up the process.

Before submitting the article to another journal you should inform the editor that you pick up the manuscript from the editorial office.