For Reviewer
Dear reviewers! All manuscripts that come to the editorial board are sent according to the research profile to two reviewers. You have 14 days to make a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article (fill in the standardized form), which contains the final recommendations;
The review is conducted confidentially on the principles of double-blind review (double-blind review means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows about each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers is performed through the issuing editor of the magazine.
If your conclusion indicates the need to make certain corrections to the article, the article is directed to the author with the suggestion to take into account the comments when preparing an updated version of the article or to argue them to refute them. The revised article is completed with the author’s letter that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article. The corrected version is again submitted to you for making a decision and preparing a reasoned conclusion about the possibility of publication.
We are writing to inform you that the submitted manuscripts are considered as intellectual property of the authors and non-disclosure information. It is not allowed to make copies of the reviewed article or to use the materials of the article prior to its publication.
The review takes place on a confidential basis, the information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages, peculiarities of the review, reviewers' comments and final publication decisions) is not reported to anyone except authors and reviewers. This requirement can be unfulfilled only in case there are signs or a statement about the untrustworthiness or falsification of the materials of the article. By the agreement with the authors and reviewers, reviewer’s comments may be published along with the article. In any case, the author of the reviewed thesis is given an opportunity to be made aware of the text of the review, in particular, if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.
ISSN 3041-1513 Online
DOI: 10.28925/2518-766X
