Peer-reviewing process

1.1. These Regulations on the peer review process for manuscripts intended for publication in the academic journal are an integral part of the editorial policy of LLC "Publishing House Sreda" (hereinafter - the "Publisher") and define the procedure for expert assessment of manuscripts to ensure high quality and depth of the content of the published academic journal.

1.2. These Regulations regulate the relationship with the Author(s) of materials in strict observance of the main provisions of academic publication ethics.

1.3. According to clauses 3.1 and 3.2, peer review is conducted on a confidential basis.

1.4. The Publisher peer-reviews each and every received material that corresponds to the theme of the journal for the purpose of its scientific assessment.

2.1. The peer-reviewer undertakes to inform the editor about the conflict of interests in relation to the proposed manuscript, if any, prior to the peer-review of the manuscript.

2.2. The peer-reviewer undertakes to inform the editor immediately if the peer-reviewer suspects the existence of a conflict of interest in the process of working with the manuscript or circumstances are discovered that do not allow him to perform the peer-review objectively and impartially.

2.3. The following cases are considered a conflict of interest for the peer-reviewer:

• participation in a joint study with the authors of the publication;
• availability of joint publications with authors over the past 3 years;
• work in the same scientific institution with the authors at the present time or in the last 3 years, as well as the intention to find a job in such an organization;
• work as part of the same research group or on the same grant within the same time frame;
• if the author for his part has carried out an expert assessment of the article of this peer-reviewer during the last 3 years.

2.4. The presence of a conflict of interest serves as the basis for the appointment of another peer-reviewer. If the responsible editor recognizes the identified conflict as insignificant, then he brings information about it to the attention of the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board who participated in the selection of peer-reviewers.

3.1. Peer review is double-blind, facilitated by the interaction of Authors and Reviewers, and is conducted only via the Publisher's electronic platform.

3.2. To submit a manuscript for peer review, the received papers undergo a process of "depersonalization," i.e., removal of the author's affiliation.

3.3. Competent experts (reviewers), whose names are not disclosed, perform the peer review of authors' manuscripts.

3.4. All assigned reviewers are qualified specialists in the field of the reviewed materials and have publications on the topic of the reviewed article within the last 3 years.

3.5. Copying of materials by reviewers for personal research and transferring manuscripts or parts thereof to another person for review is not permitted, in accordance with ethical standards and the Publisher's requirements for reviewers.

3.6. The peer review period is at least 3 weeks and may be changed during the editorial process.

4.1. Peer-review is an expert analysis of materials and objective assessment of the manuscript, with the provision of rational arguments.

4.2. An expert evaluation of the manuscript quality, reflected in Peer-review, includes:

• accordance of the content with the title;
• general analysis of the level of the scientific content of the paper, novelty, terminology and structure of the publication, the relevance of the topic and the significance of the problem; theoretical and practical components of the study;
• the authenticity of described facts; completeness of study material;
• assessment of the manuscript's preparedness for publication in terms of language and style, compliance of the manuscript with formatting requirements; presence of references to the bibliography used and other information sources;
• compliance of the methods applied by the Author, guidelines and research results to modern science and practice achievements;
• the practicability and feasibility of various illustrative materials given in the manuscript;
• correctness of the results received;
• correlation of the authors' conclusions with existing scientific concepts;
• clarity of reasoning and argumentation; the accuracy and validity of the final findings correlated with the goals and objectives of the study;
• evaluation of author's personal contribution in the research of problem solution;
• identification of the author's shortcomings, inaccuracies and errors.

4.3. The review should include a recommendation for publication, further revision, or rejection of the manuscript.

4.4. The review is submitted in compliance with the requirements set forth in paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of these Regulations.

5.1. The Publisher sends the review to the author of the manuscript without revealing the reviewer's information, including name, position, and place of work.

5.2. When the paper is approved, the Publisher notifies the author of its acceptance for publication and announces the publication timeline.

5.3. If the overall assessment is positive with only minor criticisms noted in the review, the manuscript may be classified as polemical and accepted for publication in an academic journal as part of a scientific discussion.

5.4. If the review contains recommendations for revision or clarification, the manuscript is sent to the author for the necessary revision, indicating the exact period in which the reviewer's comments are to be addressed and the paper finalized. The final version of the manuscript with the changes and responses to the reviewer's notes, presented in a separate file, is sent for re-review to obtain a qualified opinion on publication, further revision, or rejection.

5.5. The Publisher has the right to send the paper for additional peer review, request the Author to revise it followed by further review, or reject it if a negative review is received.

5.6. In case of a categorical rejection of the manuscript the Publisher shall notify the Author in written form, specifying reasons for rejection.

6.1. Reviews are stored in the publishing house for 5 years.

6.2. The Publisher sends copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education upon receipt of a corresponding request.