First stage. The article undergoes scientific and technical examination (at this stage it is possible to revise the article according to the comments of the expert).
The second stage. The article is sent for review to two specialists (at this stage it is possible to improve the article according to the reviewers' comments).
The third stage. In the case of an overall positive conclusion, the article is sent to the editor for proof-reading (at this stage, questions-corrections to the author from the editor-in-chief are possible).
In the case of absence of feedback from the authors within two weeks after contacting the editors, the article may be rejected unilaterally.
The review process may take from several weeks to several months. The editorial board makes a conclusion on the possibility of publication based on the results of two reviews by specialists, the opinion of a scientific expert, and the general decision of the editorial board. After the decision on acceptance, the article is sent to the next issue of the journal.
If the article fails to pass scientific or technical review, it may be rejected before the reviewing stage.
Independent reviewing implies an expert evaluation of the article by recognized experts in the subject matter of the reviewed materials. When writing an independent review in our Publishing House, the article undergoes a double-blind review, i.e. neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other. The manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers.
Both members of the editorial board and external experts act as reviewers. The final decision on the choice of reviewers rests with the editorial board. Reviewers should be well informed about the subject area of the manuscript, they should not be from the authors' institution, and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.
The independent Peer-review is carried out in accordance with the foregoing provision of the independent Peer-review.
1.1. The present Regulation on the process of Peer-reviewing manuscripts intended for publication in the academic journal is an integral part of editorial policy LLC Publishing house "Sreda" (hereinafter - the "Publisher"), which defines manuscripts expert assessment procedure to ensure high quality and depth of the content of published academic journal.
1.2. Regulations on the process of Peer-reviewing regulates the relationship of the Author(s) of materials with absolute observance of main provisions of academic publication ethics.
1.3. According to the articles 3.1 and 3.2 the Peer-review is conducted in the format of confidentiality.
1.4. Publisher peer-reviews each and every received material correspond to the theme of the journal with 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-reviewing implies dual anonymous character, induced by interraction of Authors and Peer-reviewers, realized only via the Publishing house e-platform.
3.2. In order to apply the manuscript for Peer-reviewing the received papers are subjected to such the process of "depersonalization," i.e. removal of author's affiliation.
3.3. Attracted competent experts (Peer-reviewers), whose names are not disclosed perform the Peer-review of authors' manuscripts.
3.4. All assigned peer-reviewers are qualified specialists in the field of reviewed materials and possess a publication on the topic of reviewed article within the last 3 years.
3.5. Copying of materials by Peer-reviewers for personal research and transfer of the manuscripts or their part (s) for Peer-review to another person, in accordance with the ethical standards and the requirements of the publishing house to the Peer-reviewers, is not provided.
3.6. The Peer-review period is from 3 weeks, it can 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 preparedness of the manuscript for publication in respect of the language and the style, accordance of the manuscript materials to the requirements; presence of links on the bibliography used and other sources of information;
- 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 correlation 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 Peer-review should include a recommendation on the publication of the manuscript for the further improvements or rejection of the manuscript.
4.4. The Peer-review is submitted in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Regulation.
5.1. Publishing house sends the Peer-review to the author of the manuscript without the Peer-reviewer's information, including name, position and place of work.
5.2. When the paper is approved, the publishing house notifies the author about its acceptance for publication and announces the check dates of publication.
5.3. When an overall assessment is positive with minimal criticisms noted in the Peer-review, paper material can be added to the category of polemical and be accepted for publication in a academic journal in the manner of scientific discussion.
5.4. In case when Peer-review gives recommendations on improvement or clarification, the manuscript is sent to the author for the necessary improvement indicating the exact period during which the selected by the Peer-reviewer comments are to be eliminated, and the paper should be finalized. The final version of the manuscript with improvement and answers to the Peer-reviewer notes, presented in a separate file, is sent to re-reviewer to provide a qualified opinion on the publication, further refinement or rejection of the paper.
5.5. The Publisher has the right to send a paper for additional Peer-review, or ask the Author to revise it with further Peer-review, or reject, if the negative Peer-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. Peer-review is stored in the publishing house for 5 years.
6.2. The publishing house sends copies of peer-reviews to Ministry of Science and Higher Education upon reception of correspondent inquiry.